Global warming slowing down??

FWVT

Sparks wrote: »

Er, no, you weren't. You said:

You can't say something is running away without making predictions (specifically that the trend will continue beyond where your observations end with the same pattern you've seen to that point).

Eh, hang on, you posted the original graph to counter the claim that hurricanes are on the decrease (which I don't agree with, by the way), claiming that yes they are increasing, in line with predictions. All I did was point out the missing data in your graph, that paint a different picture. I did not discuss forecasts.

Nobody said that in the entire chain of posts. Someone said hurricanes have been decreasing in the last decade; I posted the observations that said they had not, but had been increasing; you asked what about the years after the observations I posted ended; I posted what observations I could find for those years; then you made a comment about predictions. Which we weren't talking about.



(a) Nobody is suggesting, even in the crazy fringes, that we introduce green taxes or carbon credits or tinfoil hats on the basis of what the tabloids print. That would be lunacy. So we can not only give the media zero time, but zero characters in posts on here as well.

(b) The IPCC is not the tabloids, nor is it part of the media at all. And its predictions are so far proving to be overly conservative (as the graphs for land ice coverage show so far). And individual climatologists like Hansen have made predictions over the last few decades which we've now seen by observation were quite accurate.

So the hype in the press is off but the science isn't; isn't this something we've heard over and over and over again with the media ad infinitum and isn't it time we stopped judging science based on what the media uses to hawk its ad spacereports?

Except that we already know that what we're seeing doesn't match anything on the longer timescales. Yes, you have the 120kyear cycles, but what we're seeing now is working a hundred times faster than those, and nobody's found any natural cycle that explains what we're now seeing. Despite centuries of looking.


So professionals studying this for decades all over the world are wrong and you, a random dog on the internet, are right.

Again, cue the Sagan Standard. There's no law says you're wrong, but where's your evidence that you're right? You've just said that there is some, when you talk about zooming out on time series, you've obviously got something in mind there, so what is it?

Sparks

odyboody wrote: »

Here is a very small sampling of what current and former UN scientists have to say about the UN’s climate claims and its scientific methods.

Actually, you've just swiped the content from here without attributing it. Mind you, if you *had* attributed it, we'd know who you're talking about; we'd know he's got a history of preparing lists like that.

There are two problems with those lists: the first is that they're usually like the Oregon Petition - whose 34,000 scientists saying climate change was a fraud turned out to include the Spice Girls (Dr. Geri Halliwell signing it twice), Charles Darwin, I C Ewe, and a few of the Star Wars characters, and whose 340 actual* PhDs didn't have PhDs in climatology.
*I say "actual" but when someone did the legwork after discovering that the Spice Girls didn't actually have a singer who was a qualified climatologist, it turned out that they were only able to find one actual climate scientist on the list who still agreed with the petition.

If you want the actual story on the people in that list, someone went through all of them if you want to do the reading. But to take a few, Itoh is not an IPCC scientist, nor is he an climatologist - he's an industrial chemist. Ahluwalia has been quoted out of context there (that quote is lifted from the US Senate Minority Report which got quite a few complaints from scientists who were annoyed it had misquoted them in order to make it sound like they disagreed with the IPCC when they didn't). And the caveats go on like that for rather a long while.

Oh, and "expert reviewer"? Sorry, but no, if you want to be an IPCC AR4 expert reviewer (or AR5, but the AR6 process isn't out yet), you send them an email asking to be one, they send you a draft of the upcoming report and you can send them comments back; the only qualification required is that you agree not to publish or comment on the draft before the final report is published. No academic or other qualifications are required. Wanna be an AT4 reviewer? You too, can be a leading climate scientist!

The second problem with those lists is that they're a list of quotes.

Last time I checked, magic wasn't a thing, so just saying words didn't change the physical universe - so quotes don't quite outrank data when it comes to science. And as fun as it can be to read them, it doesn't matter if an engineer thinks the IPCC is daft, it doesn't affect the amount of land ice out there...

Sparks

FWVT wrote: »

Eh, hang on, you posted the original graph to counter the claim that hurricanes are on the decrease (which I don't agree with, by the way), claiming that yes they are increasing, in line with predictions.

Right up until you said "in line with predictions" you were correct (more or less - I'd argue that it's hard to "claim" hurricane data because they're kindof big and people tend to notice them).

There wasn't any prediction mentioned in that chain of posts; you brought those in out of nowhere, citing nothing (not even the specific predictions you were thinking of).

All I did was point out the missing data in your graph, that paint a different picture. I did not discuss forecasts.

Except that there was no missing data in that graph; the graph was drawn when that "missing" data was in the future and thus not data at all because the events hadn't happened yet. The other graphs were drawn later with additional data that wasn't available when the first graphs were drawn.

And all those graphs were of observations. No predicting involved. Data from past events, portrayed in graph form. Even the trend line is based on past data; it's analysis, not prediction.

markfla

Thargor wrote: »

But do you disagree with the graphs? I mean he claims that hurricanes arent happening with any increased frequency, so someone shows him evidence of a large spike in hurricane activity and he just disappears, probably to reappear in another climate change thread in a months time claiming again that there's been no observed increase in hurricane activity, its really frustrating to read this kind of behavior on Boards and other forums over and over again.

Hey precious, only out of bed as I'm working nights. Do take a look at the time I posted before you get your panties in a twist. There's a reason I said the last few years hurricane frequency is down, I'm fully aware of trends but he posted a chart that's not current and inclusive of the last few years since his chart ends. Anyway I'll be back later as I'm on my phone in bed.

Sparks

Except that the only way you can get hurricane frequencies to have decreased in the last few years is to (a) make assumptions about how many you didn't observe in the 19th century because of the lack of satellites and other observational challenges; and (b) only look at the ones that made landfall in the US. Do anything else and there's no decrease.

In other words, you only see the decrease you're talking about if you don't look at observations, but make predictions about what you would have seen if you'd had weather satellites in then 1800s. There's irony there...

markfla

Sparks wrote: »

Except that the only way you can get hurricane frequencies to have decreased in the last few years is to (a) make assumptions about how many you didn't observe in the 19th century because of the lack of satellites and other observational challenges; and (b) only look at the ones that made landfall in the US. Do anything else and there's no decrease.

In other words, you only see the decrease you're talking about if you don't look at observations, but make predictions about what you would have seen if you'd had weather satellites in then 1800s. There's irony there...

Hi sparks, good reply to my original post. You're probably right if its just in context of US landfall which has fallen off regarding frequency of hurricanes and would be what I've been going off so I'd accept your argument on that. You mention a two year time span for looking at sea ice levels would be too short a timespan and I agree but indications are looking like global sea ice will be up again for this year which is at the crux of what I'm trying to understand... If sea temps are up should we have seen an uptick in sea ice at all the last few years since those record lows or is it still within natural variably on a downwards trend. And even still I understand that three years is still too short in the context of climate.

Anyway as a side note I'm not a "denier", just a punter looking for answers and appreciate your post sparks, I've worked with creationists in the US for years, I know what science denial looks like.

Iancar29

I seriously think the majority of these posts should be in the conspiracy forum , its actually baffling .

Red Nissan

Hurricanes in the Atlantic and Tornadoes in the USA are rather cyclical. They follow a 7 year cycle which is influenced by the El Nino, La Nina events.

We can expect to see an increase in Atlantic Hurricanes in the coming five years to reach an near endemic proportions before they almost disappear again.

Tornadoes follow a similar pattern and we are more or less into the second year of the current cycle. The US had one Tornado event before May this year. A problem with Tornadoes is that if an EF5 is observed in the country side where it does no damage, then it effectively and officially does not exist.

Satellite mapping is showing that there tends to be the same amount of events so just knowing the number is not the full picture, we still have a constant stream of disturbances flowing out of Africa as any other year but this year is proving rather quite for Tropical Storms and Hurricanes in the Atlantic.

Our impact from same can largely be dependent on the position of the jet stream, so in an active year for Atlantic Hurricanes in Ireland we might be sparred due to the Jet Stream.

OldRio

Thargor wrote: »

But do you disagree with the graphs? I mean he claims that hurricanes arent happening with any increased frequency, so someone shows him evidence of a large spike in hurricane activity and he just disappears, probably to reappear in another climate change thread in a months time claiming again that there's been no observed increase in hurricane activity, its really frustrating to read this kind of behavior on Boards and other forums over and over again.

Bless, life must be hard. How do you cope?

Lies damned lies and statistics. The same data can be used for and against an argument. As for the graph? see posts above.

There is a self serving scientific and political lobby feeding from the same trough. It seems anyone who dares question any part of this meets with the new 'Spanish Inquisition' (Cue Monty Python sketch)

Oneiric 3

Sparks wrote: »

That was a valid question twenty years ago, not so much today because it's been settled.

You obviously misunderstood the context of which the question was written in. I'll phrase it a little differently:

So what if global warming/climate change is man-made or not? I am here trying to learn and understand, as I am sure many others are, so the question, while it might seem a tad flippant, is far from it.

Sparks wrote: »

Yes

And...? in what way does it really matter?

Sparks wrote: »

Think you might find you've understated its importance

I think you'll find, if you had read my post right, that I did no such thing. I asked a question, not state an opinion in this particular case. But I am all ears if you would like to answer it next time around

Sparks wrote: »

It's not just a case of crying because your grandkids won't ever see a coral reef

Who's crying though?

it's the economic impact of the change that's going to wallop us

That sounds like a pretty definite statement. Is it possible that you could point me to some peer reviewed socioeconomic based research papers that back up this claim?

Sparks wrote: »

Are you kidding?

You already know the answer to that, so bit of a pointless question, no?

Ah, right, I see. So if they don't comment on climate change denial then climate change isn't happening and if they do comment on it, their professional qualifications are suspect?

Sorry, but I don't think you do.

Quick question, what are your professional qualifications?

I don't have any professional qualifications, I am just a poor, uneducated working class catholic boy who grew up in the slums.

What are your own professional qualifications? It is pretty obvious you are a well-learned authority in the this subject, so I am assuming you are a climate scientist?

I mean, you're the one arguing that 97% of the world's climatologists are wrong

I am? Where exactly in my post did I declare and argue that "97% of the world's climatologists are wrong"?

Sparks

markfla wrote: »

Hi sparks, good reply to my original post. You're probably right if its just in context of US landfall which has fallen off regarding frequency of hurricanes and would be what I've been going off so I'd accept your argument on that.

It's even worse than that - it's the adjusted landfall figures that show a decrease, and the adjustment is a best guess for how many we would have seen prior to the invention of weather satellites and the like.

You mention a two year time span for looking at sea ice levels would be too short a timespan and I agree but indications are looking like global sea ice will be up again for this year which is at the crux of what I'm trying to understand... If sea temps are up should we have seen an uptick in sea ice at all the last few years since those record lows or is it still within natural variably on a downwards trend. And even still I understand that three years is still too short in the context of climate.

That's been studied quite a bit - this is a pretty decent quick explanation:

If the Southern Ocean is warming, why is sea ice increasing? There are several contributing factors. One is the drop in ozone levels over Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole has caused cooling in the stratosphere (Gillet 2003). A side-effect is a strengthening of the cyclonic winds that circle the Antarctic continent (Thompson 2002). The wind pushes sea ice around, creating areas of open water known as polynyas. More polynyas leads to increased sea ice production (Turner 2009).

Another contributor is changes in ocean circulation. The Southern Ocean consists of a layer of cold water near the surface and a layer of warmer water below. Water from the warmer layer rises up to the surface, melting sea ice. However, as air temperatures warm, the amount of rain and snowfall also increases. This freshens the surface waters, leading to a surface layer less dense than the saltier, warmer water below. The layers become more stratified and mix less. Less heat is transported upwards from the deeper, warmer layer. Hence less sea ice is melted (Zhang 2007).

Despite that counterintuitive result, the overall trend is kindof clear - a loss of sea ice globally, even if the Antarctic sea ice is trending upwards:


(Don't forget though, while the free-floating sea ice is stable or even increasing in the Antarctic, the land ice there is definitely decreasing, as the other ice graphs above show).

Sparks

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

So what if global warming/climate change is man-made or not?

Because if we're the forcing factor, then we can ameliorate the effects (it's too late to avoid them now, but that doesn't mean we can't minimise damage).

That sounds like a pretty definite statement. Is it possible that you could point me to some peer reviewed socioeconomic based research papers that back up this claim?

Google Scholar is a wonderful thing.
Or, you could just follow [url=

https://twitter.com/ElaineByrne/status/500922023745294336]Elaine

Byrne of the Sindo on twitter[/url] as she's out in Kiribati reporting on climate change at the moment...

I don't have any professional qualifications, I am just a poor, uneducated working class catholic boy who grew up in the slums.
What are your own professional qualifications? It is pretty obvious you are a well-learned authority in the this subject, so I am assuming you are a climate scientist?

Nope, just an engineer who found the topic interesting (and a parent who was wondering what his kid was going to be facing in the next fifty years).
Thing is, I'm not the one saying that 97% of the world's experts on the topic are wrong...


(btw, "poor working class catholic boy who grew up in the slums"? Please. You were lucky. We lived for three months in a paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six in the morning, clean the paper bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down t' mill, fourteen hours a day, week-in week-out, for sixpence a week, and when we got home our Dad would thrash us to sleep wi' his belt.)

I am? Where exactly in my post did I declare and argue that "97% of the world's climatologists are wrong"?

Here:

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

This seems to be a popular swipe by middle-man type advocates of AGW to somehow dismiss and belittle those that may have an alternative view on climate. Yet I not heard any climate scientist coming out with personal remarks like this. And if I was to, I would sincerely question their academic credentials and the institution/s they earned them in.

Oneiric 3

Sparks wrote: »

Google Scholar is a wonderful thing.
Or, you could just follow Elaine Byrne of the Sindo on twitter as she's out in Kiribati reporting on climate change at the moment..

Ta muchly

Sparks wrote: »

Please. You were lucky. We lived for three months in a paper bag in a septic tank. We used to have to get up at six in the morning, clean the paper bag, eat a crust of stale bread, go to work down t' mill, fourteen hours a day, week-in week-out, for sixpence a week, and when we got home our Dad would thrash us to sleep wi' his belt.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, I know I was / am. What is with the rest of the post though?

Here

Seriously? I'll ask again, where did I say that 97% of the world's climatologists are wrong?

Thing is, I'm not the one saying that 97% of the world's experts on the topic are wrong..

And who is saying that you are?

Thargor

OldRio wrote: »

Bless, life must be hard. How do you cope?

Lies damned lies and statistics. The same data can be used for and against an argument. As for the graph? see posts above.

There is a self serving scientific and political lobby feeding from the same trough. It seems anyone who dares question any part of this meets with the new 'Spanish Inquisition' (Cue Monty Python sketch)

Same old nonsense, how is this conspiracy of hundreds of thousands/millions of scientists and politicians being coordinated? "Lies damned lies and statistics", the old cliche wheeled out by anyone who knows they've been proven wrong

OldRio

Thargor wrote: »

Same old nonsense, how is this conspiracy of hundreds of thousands/millions of scientists and politicians being coordinated? "Lies damned lies and statistics", the old cliche wheeled out by anyone who knows they've been proven wrong

Deary me. I agree with the opening OP.


'Proven wrong' ?
I think you are mistaken.

Sparks

OldRio wrote: »

'Proven wrong' ?
I think you are mistaken.

No, he's correct. We're way past the point where the scientific consensus is high enough that we accept something as true. If this was physics, this would be the point a decade after the mercury observations in 1919 -- the consensus says Einstein was right and Newton wasn't. The debate's over and the engineers are going to wind up building GPS satellites using Einstein's math, not Newton's. If this was medicine, we'd be in the 1870s with Snow and Pasteur's work proving germ theory over miasma theory. If it was religion, we'd be in the late 1760s, with every church in Europe finally going "er, okay, the scientists were right, fit the lightning rod so we don't have to rebuild the church steeple again this year". If it was biology, we'd be in the 1920s laughing at the americans over the snopes monkey trials because evolution was just accepted everywhere else.

Instead it's climatology and the data's in, the debate is done, and we know it's happening and we know it's us causing it. The only major question left now is "What do we do about it?"

OldRio

I am discussing the OP. That an exaggeration has taken place.

Red Nissan

Sparks wrote: »

Instead it's climatology and the data's in, the debate is done, and we know it's happening and we know it's us causing it. The only major question left now is "What do we do about it?"

Overall, regardless of this particular issue, the planet itself is leaving the Ice Age, as far as we know, no humans have lived here, ice free.

Calibos

Red Nissan wrote: »

Overall, regardless of this particular issue, the planet itself is leaving the Ice Age, as far as we know, no humans have lived here, ice free.

So basically you are saying we shouldn't be thinking of investing hundreds of trillions in weaning ourselves off oil or carbon sequestration tech or renewables but instead need to be thinking about investing hundreds of Trillions in 100metre tall tidal barriers around our first world cities and coastlines and helping a few billion people in the rest of the world resettle from their flooded coastal lands to the new temperate zone in empty Siberia.

Sounds like either way, we're screwed

Oneiric 3

Thargor wrote: »

Same old nonsense, how is this conspiracy of hundreds of thousands/millions of scientists and politicians being coordinated? "Lies damned lies and statistics", the old cliche wheeled out by anyone who knows they've been proven wrong

You don't think that your own response might be just a little on the old cliche side too?


Going back to my earlier statement (well, more just an observation really), there seems to be an idea of a 'them' - the 'climate deniers" - whatever that actually means) and an ''us' -those in the know, the righteous ones) in the whole climate debate outside of academia. As I said earlier, I have yet to hear the real climate academics, researchers and so forth coming out or getting involved with such nonsense. Possibly because they have good understanding of human nature and an understanding that not everyone is going to accept, or even understand, new theories or facts at an equal pace.

Which makes me wonder, do we, as the middle-men, the non-academics, need that divide? Do we need that 'nemesis', the bad guys, the climate deniers, etc to perhaps give that little extra sense and purpose to this (or any other) particularly cause, whether it is a cause worth fighting for or not? I realize I am just thinking out loud, but it is something that I cannot help but ponder.

Calibos wrote: »

So basically you are saying we shouldn't be thinking of investing hundreds of trillions in weaning ourselves off oil or carbon sequestration tech or renewables but instead need to be thinking about investing hundreds of Trillions in 100metre tall tidal barriers around our first world cities and coastlines and helping a few billion people in the rest of the world resettle from their flooded coastal lands to the new temperate zone in empty Siberia.

Sounds like either way, we're screwed

Another idea (I know, silly) would be to invest all those trillions into improving the lives of the world's millions of destitute, sick, hungry and worn torn people that are suffering way beyond what our privileged comprehension can endure as we speak. Perhaps put something also into medical research, improved education and health services for everyone etc, the list is endless really.

Meteorite58

I like this brief excerpt from a Christopher Hitchens interview and his views on global warming, ' we don't have another planet on which to run the experiment'.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ij500baQFNw

FWVT

Sparks wrote: »

Right up until you said "in line with predictions" you were correct (more or less - I'd argue that it's hard to "claim" hurricane data because they're kindof big and people tend to notice them).

There wasn't any prediction mentioned in that chain of posts; you brought those in out of nowhere, citing nothing (not even the specific predictions you were thinking of).

Could you please stop with this forecast vs observation argument as it's getting a little tiresome at this stage. Your whole reason for posting, and the thread in general, is about the recent observations versus what they "should" be. The OP said they're not in line with what we were told they would be, you are saying that they are, and you repeatedly use the IPCC reports, which are forecasts, as your basis. You have referred to doomsday forecasts like "our poor grandkids won't see a coral reefs", etc., so like it or not you are talking about the IPCC FORECASTS. You posted graphs of observations as support for your claim that what we are observing is in line with what we were told would happen, i.e. the forecasts.

Except that there was no missing data in that graph; the graph was drawn when that "missing" data was in the future and thus not data at all because the events hadn't happened yet. The other graphs were drawn later with additional data that wasn't available when the first graphs were drawn.

And all those graphs were of observations. No predicting involved. Data from past events, portrayed in graph form. Even the trend line is based on past data; it's analysis, not prediction.

And I repeat, why post an old graph which is not up to date? You did so because it has the maximum hockey-stick appearance. That's a problem I have. Many of the graphs stop a decade ago. Just Google Image the words "global temperature" and see how many of the results actually run up to 2012 or 2013. Not many. The up-to-date graphs you had to post afterwards just don't look as shocking as your initial one.

Anyway, my stance is this. I 100% agree that we should be focusing all of our efforts on developing alternatives to fossil fuels, not because I believe they will cause problems for our climate, but because we will run out of them at some point and there are cleaner alternatives.

I am also 100% against conspiracy theories, as anyone who reads my online articles will notice. There are headbangers in both camps, so I listen to neither. I am well qualified to form my own opinion based on all that's out there. That opinion is that, in the overall scheme of things, WE are not causing a huge problem for our grandkids. The climate is doing what it does -changing - but our part in this is not big. We are rebounding from a cool period, so the overall trend is upwards, with spikes and level periods. This background trend does not correlate with our increase in CO2 production since 1850. The rate of increase in temperature since then was ahead of the rate of increase in CO2, by too much. The temperature should be almost off the scale at this stage if the small increase in CO2 150 years ago had anything to do with the observed warming. It didn't, which begs the question, why didn't it? It is claimed that only the last few decades are down to us, the earlier (almost equal) warming decades were primarily not.

The levellings off of the turn of the 20th century and the '50s-'70s are similar to the current levelling. They all coincide with particular PDO and AMO phases, however the current levelling should be less pronounced if the increasing CO2 is having a larger and larger driving influence. Yes solar activity is low, which proves, nature is the real driving force.

I also question why we are being warned that ALL future scenarios from climate change will be invariably bad, in every region of the world. It will be misery for all. Are there no places that will benefit? None at all? I have yet to hear of any. I attended the Met Eireann talk on the outlook for Ireland in 2100 and it painted a very benign picture, with only slight changes by then, none of them dramatic. That's just one small country in a large world but still, if these forecasts are correct then our grandkids have zero to be worried about. Climate change is not all bad. We are mere tenants on this planet and we have always had to adapt to changes in its climate. Why do we think we are any different now?

Bongalongherb

Hang on while I stick all of this random theory model specific algorithms together into a snowball into my new theoretic computer and see what it shows for the weather cycles in 30 years. Ah yes, the model production useless variables are like my theory and fit my theory belief system, astonishing.

The input is flawed.

No human at this time can predict the long-term weather cycle of this planet, it is extremely complicated, chaos theory scenario.. As for global warming...well, there is a feeling of change, but it is only a natural cycle of this planet and sun-spot/solar-flare proximity forwarded to this planet and how these complex universal random chaos laws intermingle with our tiny world.

Don't take my word for it, but add in the moons gravitational pull as well as electromagnetic forces and it gets even more chaotic.

Red Nissan

FWVT wrote: »

Climate change is not all bad. We are mere tenants on this planet and we have always had to adapt to changes in its climate. Why do we think we are any different now?

Because the world power will change. Ancient bread baskets of the world may return as current deserts bloom reliably and start to support crops again after thousands of years of dry climate [current climate].

I don't think the story is about oil, think weather and climate change and think where oil came from and could these regions return to arable sustainability in the near future?

Akrasia

OldRio wrote: »

I am discussing the OP. That an exaggeration has taken place.

To everyone who thinks that this 'pause' in global warming proves that the projections are wrong, you are just demonstrating a lack of understanding of graphs.

Go back and look at any of the temperature record graphs. There isn't a single graph, either historical, or projected that shows the temperatures increasing every single year with each year being a record high global average surface/air temperature.

There are always short term variations that can last even for a decade or more. The difference between a world with Anthroprogenic global warming and a world without Anthroprogenic global warming is that without AGW, there would be periods of declining temperatures as part of the normal trend. With AGW, these periods have been replaced with stagnant temperatures, or even just a 'slowdown' in temperature increases.

The irony of the global warming denialism about this 'pause' is that the temperatures still increased during the period under discussion. They are claiming global warming stopped during a time when global temperatures increased (and this is not to mention the fact that a vast amount of energy is also being added to the oceans through warming during this period.

We know that periodically the heat stored in the oceans gets transferred to the atmosphere (through changes in ocean currents that divert warmer water to places with colder air thus increasing conduction of heat from ocean to atmosphere) and the excess heat in the deep ocean is building up so that we could see some spectacular weather events in the next few years if and when these transfers take place.

Duiske

Sparks wrote: »

Well, you think that, but when 97% of the world's climatologists all specifically agree that mankind is causing this, I'm just gonna go with their evidence-based statements. If you have evidence that contradicts those 97%... well, why haven't you published yet? You'd be famous...

This has been brought up time and again. Can you please point us to the survey where "97% of the world's climatologists all specifically agree that mankind is causing this".

Oneiric 3

Akrasia wrote: »

We know that periodically the heat stored in the oceans gets transferred to the atmosphere (through changes in ocean currents that divert warmer water to places with colder air thus increasing conduction of heat from ocean to atmosphere) and the excess heat in the deep ocean is building up so that we could see some spectacular weather events in the next few years if and when these transfers take place.

What kind of 'spectacular' weather events? More spectacular than weather events say a year ago, 23 years ago, 418 year ago, 18,794 years ago?

FWVT

Akrasia wrote: »

To everyone who thinks that this 'pause' in global warming proves that the projections are wrong, you are just demonstrating a lack of understanding of graphs.

Go back and look at any of the temperature record graphs. There isn't a single graph, either historical, or projected that shows the temperatures increasing every single year with each year being a record high global average surface/air temperature.

There are always short term variations that can last even for a decade or more. The difference between a world with Anthroprogenic global warming and a world without Anthroprogenic global warming is that without AGW, there would be periods of declining temperatures as part of the normal trend. With AGW, these periods have been replaced with stagnant temperatures, or even just a 'slowdown' in temperature increases.

The irony of the global warming denialism about this 'pause' is that the temperatures still increased during the period under discussion. They are claiming global warming stopped during a time when global temperatures increased (and this is not to mention the fact that a vast amount of energy is also being added to the oceans through warming during this period.

Are you quite sure about that bit in bold? I don't see any warming since around 2001, so almost half a climatic period.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

OldRio

Akrasia wrote: »

To everyone who thinks that this 'pause' in global warming proves that the projections are wrong, you are just demonstrating a lack of understanding of graphs.

Go back and look at any of the temperature record graphs. There isn't a single graph, either historical, or projected that shows the temperatures increasing every single year with each year being a record high global average surface/air temperature.

There are always short term variations that can last even for a decade or more. The difference between a world with Anthroprogenic global warming and a world without Anthroprogenic global warming is that without AGW, there would be periods of declining temperatures as part of the normal trend. With AGW, these periods have been replaced with stagnant temperatures, or even just a 'slowdown' in temperature increases.

The irony of the global warming denialism about this 'pause' is that the temperatures still increased during the period under discussion. They are claiming global warming stopped during a time when global temperatures increased (and this is not to mention the fact that a vast amount of energy is also being added to the oceans through warming during this period.

We know that periodically the heat stored in the oceans gets transferred to the atmosphere (through changes in ocean currents that divert warmer water to places with colder air thus increasing conduction of heat from ocean to atmosphere) and the excess heat in the deep ocean is building up so that we could see some spectacular weather events in the next few years if and when these transfers take place.

Well I would never be as bold as to suggest that everyone who disagreed with me 'are just demonstrating a lack of understanding of graphs.'
Everyone ? You mean everyone? Wow. Some statement.

Akrasia

OldRio wrote: »

Well I would never be as bold as to suggest that everyone who disagreed with me 'are just demonstrating a lack of understanding of graphs.'
Everyone ? You mean everyone? Wow. Some statement.

If the 'pause' means global warming has stopped or was exaggerated, then this was true for the period between 1989 and 1995 when there was a 'pause' in global warming followed by a rapid surge and rapidly increasing temperatures.

The graph above is flat because 2008 was a cold year and this drags down the 5 year average, but 2008 was still hotter than any year prior to 1998, so even an outlier cold year this decade would have broken global temperature records 10 years before.

The graph posted above stops showing the rolling average at 2011. If you plot it out to 2013 the global temperature is higher than the previous peak in 2007

The current year so far is tied with 2002 as the third warmest on record (for the period January to July http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/) and if this is maintained for the rest of the year, it will certainly drag the 5 year rolling average back into the rapidly increasing trend that the climate models predict

(Unfortunately)