Climate Change Could Happen Slower for the Next Decade, Study Says

Your imaginary "point" is specious. The solar variability effect is minuscule and is not responsible for the increases in ocean temperatures. You tried to use anonymous altered graphs falsely attributed to the EPA to make your fraudulent "point", with true denier cult deceptiveness.

What you see is that I trust the testimony of the world scientific community, and the obvious supporting physical evidence in the world around me. I certainly don't trust the anti-science ravings of a deluded dupe of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign who tries to use the tactics of deception and deceit to make his specious "points".

Your questions are anti-science nonsense and meaningless denier cult drivel. That's obvious to everyone but you deniers.

Like most of the deniers on this heavily moderated forum, you try to twist the valid criticisms of the fallacious twaddle you post into a phony charge of 'personal insult' that you can complain about. I am "insulting" the bogus BS you post, not you personally.

Then why does the world scientific community completely disagree with your denier cult pseudo-science and politically motivated denial of the reality of AGW/CC?

Scientific opinion on climate change
Wikipedia - the free encyclopedia
The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is extremely likely (at least 95% probability) that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. In addition, it is likely that some potential further greenhouse gas warming has been offset by increased aerosols.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed current scientific opinion on global warming. These assessments are generally consistent with the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report summarized:

* Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as evidenced by increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, the widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level.[5]
* Most of the global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human activities.[6]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these main points.

Anthropogenic global warming IS science. Scientists asked 'why' is the Earth warming and, supported by many decades of intensive research, they concluded that the 43% (so far) increase in atmospheric CO2 levels that mankind's activities has created is responsible for the observed temperature increases and changes in long established climate patterns. Science is not about endlessly asking "why" like a befuddled drunk trying to figure out why his girlfriend left him. It is about answering the questions of why and how the world works like it does, using the techniques and tools of science, like the scientific method or statistical analysis.

 

Are there any extrapolations of atmospheric temperature made BEFORE 1998 that accounted for the current lull? Any at all? One?

Realizing that the 15 years since 1998 was the period of MAXIMUM volumetric CO2 emissions in the HISTORY of mankind.

Any model that could correctly catch this inflection point in the midst of the highest CO2 output in the history of mankind would be a model worth looking at. But the question is, was there even ONE that spotted this lull?

 

Climate models are doing well at assisting scientific understanding of the Earth's climate and the current abrupt warming trend, and they are being constantly improved. Scientists know a lot more now about the details of the subtle physical processes involved on shaping the Earth's climate, than they did in the 1990s.

Study vindicates climate models accused of ‘missing the pause’
TheConversation
21 July 2014
(REPUBLISH THIS ARTICLE - We believe in the free flow of information. We use a Creative Commons license, so you can republish our articles for free, online or in print.)
Climate models can recreate the slowdown in global warming since 1998, as long as they correctly factor in crucial variables such as the state of the El Niño system, new research has shown.

The discovery vindicates the models against the accusation that they failed to predict the “alleged hiatus” in surface warming, says CSIRO researcher James Risbey, who led the study.

In the study, published in Nature Climate Change, Risbey and his colleagues looked at a set of 18 climate models featuring data on the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) – the seesawing temperature pattern that determines whether a given period is dominated by El Niño or La Niña conditions.

They then looked only at those models whose PDO settings matched those in the real world, and found that these models gave a much more accurate reconstruction of temperature trends – including the slowdown in warming seen over the past decade and a half.

Model settings

The discovery shows that El Niño has a strong influence on temperature trends over relatively short timescales such as 15 years, Risbey said.

Because Pacific temperature patterns flip back and forth every few decades, not all climate models reflect the real-world state of El Niño at a given time. That means that, when many models are averaged together, climate models have tended to overestimate the rate of post-1998 warming.

Choosing only those ones with accurate settings for Pacific Ocean temperatures for each 15-year period meant they did a better job of recreating temperature trends during those periods, Risbey explained.

But for longer-term projections, such as the expected warming by the end of the century, this approach will not work because the dominant influence on temperature will be greenhouse gases, rather than natural cycles such as El Niño.

“If you want to do a forecast for next year then you can neglect the forcing, meaning the change in greenhouse gases, because greenhouse gases hardly change the climate from this year to next year relative to natural variations,” he said.

“But over 100 years, it doesn’t really matter what phase of PDO we’re in – whether it’s El Niño-dominated or La Niña-dominated. The main thing that’s going to determine where our temperatures are in 100 years time is going to be the response to the forcing: the greenhouse bit.”

Still breaking records

University of Tasmania climate modeller Stuart Corney pointed out that temperature records are still being broken, despite temperatures having risen more slowly than expected.

“Remember that the first decade of the 21st century was the warmest decade on record. The decade of slowdown has still seen the warmest years on record, with 2005 and 2010 both hotter than 1998,” he said.

The study also highlights the difference between climate “forecasts” and longer-term climate “projections”.

“Projections are essential for giving us information on long-term trends, but the timescale is beyond what many policy makers (and the public) consider to be relevant to their decision-making processes. Climate forecasts seek to address this issue by providing information on a shorter term (decadal) that can be used directly to inform ” he said.

“As climate forecasts improve, they will become more and more important in providing reliable information on what is likely to happen to the climate over the next decade. This paper by Risbey et al demonstrates a new technique for developing climate forecasts."

“In many ways we may have been lucky over the past 15 years, as temperatures have not risen as dramatically as expected due to being in a period of less intense El Niños. To some extent the long term climate change signal will have to ‘catch up’ as it has been lagging behind our best projections for over a decade now. This suggests significant warming (and other associated changes, such as drought in Eastern Australia) when this occurs.”

El Niño’s impact

University of New South Wales climatologist Matthew England, who earlier this year published a study linking the apparent hiatus to strengthening winds in the tropical Pacific Ocean, said:

“This work confirms the idea that decadal variability in the El Niño cycle has a major impact on globally averaged surface air temperatures.

The past 15 years have seen a relatively large number of La Niña events compared to El Niños. This cools the east Pacific and drives a strengthening of the trade winds, which leads to enhanced heat uptake in the western Pacific Ocean. Extra ocean heat uptake means less heat in the atmosphere, and a slowdown in surface warming is the result.

But it’s important to point out that this decadal variability in the Pacific will swing around again at some stage, and when it does we expect accelerated surface warming to occur.”

(REPUBLISH THIS ARTICLE - We believe in the free flow of information. We use a Creative Commons license, so you can republish our articles for free, online or in print.)

 

Matt Ridley in the WSJ: Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

- - - Updated - - -

Global Temperature Drops Below IPCC Projection Range

 

LOLOL....you are so gullible...."Matt Ridley"???....LOL.....a British newspaper writer with no education, training or experience in any field of climate science.....long time denier with ties to the usual astroturfed organizations denying AGW....repeatedly debunked by real scientists like this one.

John Abraham Slams Matt Ridley for Climate Denial Op-Ed in Wall Street Journal
DeSmogBlog
This is a guest post by Dr. John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas, in response to a Wall Street Journal op-ed by British House of Lords member Matt Ridley.
2013-09-16
(excerpts)
A recent error-filled opinion piece by Matt Ridley in the Wall Street Journal was so egregious that readers deserve a correction. The article, “Dialing back the alarm on climate change”, was written by someone who has never researched anything in the field of climate change (literature search on September 14, 2013). So what did Mr. Ridley have to say that makes a real scientist cringe? First, Mr. Ridley states that a forthcoming major climate change report (for which I was an expert reviewer) will lower the expected temperature rise we will experience in the future. He also claims that the temperature rises will be beneficial. Since the report hasn’t been released yet, and reviewers promise confidentiality, my answer is based on available literature. I can inform the readers that this isn’t necessarily the case. What Mr. Ridley is focusing on is the lower bound of warming (the best case scenario for human society). What he doesn’t tell the readers is that regardless of which estimate of warming is correct, human society will be severely stressed. Basically, he is arguing that the Earth may undergo a slow simmer whereas most scientists think it will be a faster boil. Either way, the consequences are enormous. Second, Mr. Ridley makes the unsubstantiated claim that warming of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit will result in “no net or ecological damage”.

This claim could only be made by someone who is unfamiliar with climate science. With a fraction of that warming, we are already seeing economic and ecological damage. Among them are increased precipitation in some regions with consequent flooding, more severe drought in other regions, increased storms, heat waves, rising sea levels. In the U.S. we have seen incredible weather costs over the past three years, including heat waves and droughts in 2011, 2012, and 2013; Superstorm Sandy, incredible flooding just this week in Colorado and elsewhere including my home state of Minnesota. Around the world we’ve seen similar impacts. Alternating flooding and heat waves in Europe, China, India, and Australia, to name a few examples. With these impacts being seen already, it makes a real scientist shudder about what will occur when we reach 3.6 degrees of warming. Where did Mr. Ridley get his information? Hard to say because he cited no studies that support his claim. Mr. Ridley made other irresponsible and unsupported claims – for instance stating that the benefits of rising sea levels will outweigh the consequences. That just doesn’t pass the smell test. It certainly isn’t consolation for regions like Southern Florida, which are severely threatened by rising seas. The basic facts are clear: humans are causing climate change and there are already economic costs. We scientists have known this for over one hundred years. But there is good news; we can do something about it. We don’t need futuristic technology - we can solve it today. By using energy more efficiently, we save money and the planet at the same time. By investing in smart, renewable energy, we can create the economy of the future. That is the message that should be heard, not non-science nonsense from persons like Mr. Ridley.

 

LOL, you are so gullible, desmogblog? Yep, you only read CAGW alarmist websites. The alarmism is strong in this one Luke.

 

LOLOL.....too funny....

You quote some denier drivel written by a discredited denier cult newspaper reporter, filled with misinformation and lies, and I quote an actual climate scientist and University Professor, Dr. John P. Abraham, who explains in detail just how wrong about everything the denialist reporter actually is, and totally debunks his denier cult hokum.

You ignore all that and all the actual science involved and obsess over the website (one of them) where the scientist's rebuttal was published. LOL. So pathetic...

Dr. John P. Abraham is a professor of thermal and fluid sciences at the University of St. Thomas School of Engineering, Minnesota.[1][2] His area of research includes thermodynamics, heat transfer, fluid flow, numerical simulation, and energy. After gaining his doctorate at the University of Minnesota in 2002, he joined St. Thomas as an adjunct instructor, later becoming a full-time member of the faculty. He has published approximately 130 papers in journals and conferences, and since 1997 has also been an engineering consultant working on industrial research in aerospace, biomedical, energy and manufacturing industries. In November, 2010, Dr. Abraham (and two colleagues, Professor Scott Mandia and Dr. Ray Weymann) launched the Climate Science Rapid Response Team, to provide rapid, high-quality scientific information to the media and government decision makers. The intention of this group is to enable scientists to share their work directly with the general public. This effort has been covered by many media outlets.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] The effort has an online page for media to submit their questions.[29] Abraham felt it was necessary to respond to a talk given to the Minnesota Free Market Institute in October 2009 by a well-known skeptic of human-caused global warming, Christopher Monckton. He thought "this guy is a great speaker and he is very convincing. If I didn’t know the science, I would believe him. Frankly, the nonscientists in the audience didn’t have a chance. They had no way of knowing what he said was not true. I felt Monckton took advantage of them and he knew he was taking advantage of them." In the following months he carried out research, contacting scientists cited by Monckton, and in late May 2010 he posted online an 83 minute video rebutting Monckton's statements. This attracted little attention at first, until it was highlighted by an article George Monbiot published in The Guardian.[4][5][6] Abraham's presentation and the response from Monckton subsequently received world-wide attention.[7][8][9][10][11][12] More recently, Abraham and a number of colleagues including Michael E. Mann submitted a document to the US Congress which rebutted nine errors in Christopher Monckton's May 6, 2010 testimony.[13][14][15][16] Abraham estimated early in 2012 that since beginning his rebuttal he had put around 1,000 unpaid hours into work on climate change and the controversy. He has given numerous speeches to publicize global warming issues, but does not accept funding for climate research or ask for an honorarium for speeches: if payment is given he asks that is goes to St. Thomas or to charity.[4]


Meanwhile....

MATT RIDLEY’S REGURGITATION OF DENIALIST PROPAGANDA

 

Yes, yes, the hyper political Abraham. You realize he is one of the problems for science don't you?

Abraham surrenders to Monckton. Uni of St Thomas endorses untruths.

 

LOLOLOLOL......hilarious.......Monckton is a world class bad joke and Dr. Abraham is a world class scientist......so, of course you would defend the nutjob and denigrate the actual scientist.....using an insanely delusional screed from a denier cultist's blog.....LOLOL.....

According to Christopher Monckton, scientists "perhaps" should be required to certify that they are Christian and belong to a religion before they are allowed to practice. No kidding:

“Perhaps, therefore, no one should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences, particularly in those sciences that have become the mere political footballs of the leading pressure-groups, unless he can certify that he adheres to one of those major religions – Christianity outstanding among them – that preach the necessity of morality, and the reality of the distinction between that which is so and that which is not. For science without the morality that perhaps religion alone can give is nothing”.[7]​

Birther

“The probability that the “birth certificate” and other Obama identity documents are genuine is just 1 in 75 sextillion.”[39]​

External links

• Climate Denial Crock of the Week (with Peter Sinclair) - Debunking Lord Monckton Part 1 and Part 2
• Monckton Myths - a one-stop-shop for Monckton misinformation, SkepticalScience.com
• Monckton category at Deltoid
• Lord Monckton's Rap Sheet and The Church of Monckton, Barry Bickmore
• Monckton Watch at The Conversation
• Potholer54's "Monckton Bunkum" series
• Monckton profile at OSS
• The Hamster Wheel: Lord Monckton
• Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul - an example of how he presents his claims.

 

In other words, don't bother with facts and appeal only to authority.

 

LOL.......completely clueless, as usual....

All the facts support the scientists' conclusions about AGW. You have none, as you demonstrate in every fact-free BS post you make.

There is a logical fallacy involved with using an appeal to a misleading or inappropriate or irrelevant or questionable authority that people sometimes refer to as an 'Appeal to Authority' or 'Argument from Authority'. You obviously are just repeating the phrase without understanding what it actually means. Dr. Abraham IS an actual scientific authority on the climate while Monckton is just an ignorant, politically motivated blowhard with no education in climate science. Dr. Abraham is also quite representative of the worldwide scientific consensus.

Appeal to Misleading Authority
Fallacy Files - Dr. Gary N. Curtis
© Copyright 2001-2013: Gary N. Curtis - Permission is granted for non-commercial use and replication of this material for educational purposes, provided that appropriate notice is included of both its authorship and copyrighted status.

Form:

Authority A believes that P is true.
Therefore, P is true.​

We must often rely upon expert opinion when drawing conclusions about technical matters where we lack the time or expertise to form an informed opinion. For instance, those of us who are not physicians usually rely upon those who are when making medical decisions, and we are not wrong to do so. There are, however, four major ways in which such arguments can go wrong:

1. An appeal to authority may be inappropriate in a couple of ways:

• It is unnecessary. If a question can be answered by observation or calculation, an argument from authority is not needed. Since arguments from authority are weaker than more direct evidence, go look or figure it out for yourself.
  
  The renaissance rebellion against the authority of Aristotle and the Bible played an important role in the scientific revolution. Aristotle was so respected in the Middle Ages that his word was taken on empirical issues which were easily decidable by observation. The scientific revolution moved away from this over-reliance on authority towards the use of observation and experiment.
  
  Similarly, the Bible has been invoked as an authority on empirical or mathematical questions. A particularly amusing example is the claim that the value of pi can be determined to be 3 based on certain passages in the Old Testament. The value of pi, however, is a mathematical question which can be answered by calculation, and appeal to authority is irrelevant.
  
  
• It is impossible. About some issues there simply is no expert opinion, and an appeal to authority is bound to commit the next type of mistake. For example, many self-help books are written every year by self-proclaimed "experts" on matters for which there is no expertise.

2. The "authority" cited is not an expert on the issue, that is, the person who supplies the opinion is not an expert at all, or is one, but in an unrelated area. The now-classic example is the old television commercial which began: "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV...." The actor then proceeded to recommend a brand of medicine.

3.The authority is an expert, but is not disinterested. That is, the expert is biased towards one side of the issue, and his opinion is thereby untrustworthy.

For example, suppose that a medical scientist testifies that ambient cigarette smoke does not pose a hazard to the health of non-smokers exposed to it. Suppose, further, that it turns out that the scientist is an employee of a cigarette company. Clearly, the scientist has a powerful bias in favor of the position that he is taking which calls into question his objectivity.

There is an old saying: "A doctor who treats himself has a fool for a patient," and a similar version for attorneys: "A lawyer who defends himself has a fool for a client." Why should these be true if the doctor or lawyer is an expert on medicine or the law? The answer is that we are all biased in our own causes. A physician who tries to diagnose his own illness is more likely to make a mistake out of wishful thinking, or out of fear, than another physician would be.

4. While the authority is an expert, his opinion is unrepresentative of expert opinion on the subject. The fact is that if one looks hard enough, it is possible to find an expert who supports virtually any position that one wishes to take. "Such is human perversity", to quote Lewis Carroll. This is a great boon for debaters, who can easily find expert opinion on their side of a question, whatever that side is, but it is confusing for those of us listening to debates and trying to form an opinion.

Experts are human beings, after all, and human beings err, even in their area of expertise. This is one reason why it is a good idea to get a second opinion about major medical matters, and even a third if the first two disagree. While most people understand the sense behind seeking a second opinion when their life or health is at stake, they are frequently willing to accept a single, unrepresentative opinion on other matters, especially when that opinion agrees with their own bias.

Bias (problem 3) is one source of unrepresentativeness. For instance, the opinions of cigarette company scientists tend to be unrepresentative of expert opinion on the health consequences of smoking because they are biased to minimize such consequences. For the general problem of judging the opinion of a population based upon a sample, see the Fallacy of Unrepresentative Sample.​

To sum up these points in a positive manner, before relying upon expert opinion, go through the following checklist:

* Is this a matter which I can decide without appeal to expert opinion? If the answer is "yes", then do so. If "no", go to the next question:

* Is this a matter upon which expert opinion is available? If not, then your opinion will be as good as anyone else's. If so, proceed to the next question:

* Is the authority an expert on the matter? If not, then why listen? If so, go on:

* Is the authority biased towards one side? If so, the authority may be untrustworthy. At the very least, before accepting the authority's word seek a second, unbiased opinion. That is, go to the last question:

* Is the authority's opinion representative of expert opinion? If not, then find out what the expert consensus is and rely on that. If so, then you may rationally rely upon the authority's opinion.​

If an argument to authority cannot pass these five tests, then it commits the fallacy of appeal to misleading authority.

Exposure:

Since not all arguments from expert opinion are fallacious, some authorities on logic have taken to labelling this fallacy as "appeal to inappropriate or irrelevant or questionable authority", rather than the traditional name "appeal to authority". For the same reason, I use the name "appeal to misleading authority" to distinguish fallacious from non-fallacious arguments from authority.

Sources:

• 
  [*]Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen, Introduction to Logic (Tenth Edition) (Prentice Hall, 199, pp. 165-166.
  [*]T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning: A Practical Guide to Fallacy-Free Arguments (Third Edition) (Wadsworth, 1995), pp. 31-34.
  

Resources:

• 
  [*]James Bachman, "Appeal to Authority", in Fallacies: Classical and Contemporary Readings, edited by Hans V. Hanson and Robert C. Pinto (Penn State Press, 1995), pp. 274-286.
  [*]Robert Todd Carroll, "Appeal to Authority", The Skeptic's Dictionary.
  

© Copyright 2001-2013: Gary N. Curtis - Permission is granted for non-commercial use and replication of this material for educational purposes, provided that appropriate notice is included of both its authorship and copyrighted status.

 

Yep, like I said before, facts are irrelevant for many of the warming alarmists.

 

LOLOL.....says the guy who is ignoring all the facts that he has been shown....facts that have debunked every one of his fallacious claims and absurd myths.....total reality denial.....

 

Says the guy who appears not to understand what the so-called experts say, believing them with faith, and thinks he has to use large typeset to make a point.

 

I understand quite well what the experts from all around the world are saying, almost unanimously and very loudly, which is why I trust their conclusions. You are the poor bamboozled dupe of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign, who rejects what the vast majority of the world's experts are telling us in favor of the anti-scientific misinformation and lies that your rightwingnut puppetmasters are feeding you.

As with most deniers, you try to distract from the valid information being presented with silly quibbles about the font sizes that articles from science journals, newspapers and other online sources of information are presented in, even though those stylings usually correspond to the formatting of the original articles as far as size of headlines, chapter headings and other forms of emphasis go.

 

Yes, exactly!!!!!!

 

LOLOLOL.....and there goes another poor bamboozled dupe of the fossil fuel industry's propaganda campaign, who rejects what the vast majority of the world's experts are telling us in favor of the anti-scientific misinformation and lies that his rightwingnut puppetmasters are feeding him. So sad.

 

No proof equals who cares? The discussion is not gaining any ground from the fear monger warmers. They are left with this kind of comeback. No evidence to support any of the claims on causation. Pure garbage from the experts.

 

Lies and drivel! You ignore all of the evidence because you're in deeeeeeep denial.

 

Except the ones that don't support whatever angle is being sold today…such as temperature change not outside of normal climate variability yet (Koashi, et al 2011).

Funny that a core question that MUST be answered before anyone can pretend anything is abnormal, human caused, whatever, is generally ignored, let alone leading the clamor for MORE study because it is necessary to answer the other questions, such as how human emissions function inside that range of natural variation.

 

Vacuous drivel.

Scientists worldwide are in very strong agreement on the reality of AGW, and this is reflected in the scientific literature. Your denier cult pseudo-science can't meet the standards to get published, 'cause it's such complete crap.





(source)

 

Wow. I can't believe anyone would dare to trot out that tired old discredited "97%" argument. How desperate can you get?

I read the paper that is the source for the 97% claim, its total crap, as has been discussed here in several OP's.

Just for grins I went to the source of your pie chart, went to his "List of 24 articles rejecting anthropogenic global warming" here
http://www.jamespowell.org/Rejections/index.html

And then I googled "disprove AGW" and immediately came up with articles that clearly claim AGW is wrong. A whole series of papers by Lindzen, Choi, Braswell, Spencer, Knox, Douglas, and others all published in peer reviewed journals - and not included in your pie chart source.

If in about 5 minutes I can find a dozen technical papers that claim AGW is false, it means your "source" is total crap.

 

Some of the papers listed as pro AGW in that study had nothing to do with AGW.

 

What kind of half wit confuses the popularity of an opinion with what science even IS?

How familiar are you with what it takes to be "published" in the science rags, and the odds of it happening if A) your grant wasn't funded or B) your topic isn't accepted for review?

There is a reason why people do not reference Kobashi, and that is just as much science as the current popularity of all the time, only human explanation.

 

"What kind of half wit confuses" published, peer-reviewed scientific research papers, appearing in the most respected international science journals on Earth, with a "popularity" contest or "opinions"? Are you really that completely ignorant about science? I guess, judging by the rest of your clueless drivel, the answer is pretty obviously YES.