Global warming slowing down??

Thargor

One cold Summer in the Antarctic does not negate the fact that human activity is raising the temperature of the planet in a dangerous and unpredictable way, practically every year is a record breaker these days, the global mean temperature of each year so far this decade has been warmer than the 2000s, the 2000s were warmer than the 90's and the 90's were warmer than the 80's. Its a common feature of daily mail articles to zoom in on one tiny time period and claim its evidence for the global warming hoax but the overall trend is all that matters, there will always be wild swings in a system as complex as a planet but the trend is indeniable by any reasonable person.



Why are sea levels rising if the ice caps are growing as they claim instead of shrinking as all the evidence indicates, do you realis how much water is required to raise global sea levels? Where do you think that water is coming from?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch5.html

Why is the Greenland ice sheet disappearing? Greenlanders say their country is completely different to when they were kids...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/a-warming-arctic-greenland-s-ice-sheet-melting-faster-than-ever-a-661192.html

Where is all the Arctic ice gone?

Weathering

@ Thargor. It's the Arctic. Did you even read the article or are you to set in your ways to bother? As it states, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 43% in two years as has the thickness off the ice so it won't melt entirely by x dated as previously predicted.

It also states that the original reduction was 50/over 50% natural variation/cycles. At least read it before posting. It is obvious you didn't

Thargor

Yes I did read it, I even posted a 30 year graph showing the catastrophic ice loss in the Arctic, you posted an article that zooms in on a 2 year period that showed growth as a result of a cold Arctic summer in 2013, this is a common tactic from outlets such as the daily mail, zooming in on tiny time periods or geographical areas and ignoring the mountains of evidence elsewhere, you wont find scientific consensus agreeing with that article that either polar cap is doing well, well they might agree that it expanded in 2013 but doesnt that seem slightly irrelevant next to graphs like this?

Weathering

It's a tad snobby to disregard it as the Daily mail covered it. Everything stated in the article is fact and quotes from experts in the field. I supplied other links to you too, you forgot to mention those. It is a two year increase. 43% increase in ice. Twice as much ice as the area of Alaska combined in two years when compared to 2012 and you say it's only one cold Summer.

The original point of this thread was to highlight over hyped predictions. In 2007 Al Gore said "There is a 75 per cent chance that the entire polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within five to seven years." Now the Ice is at it's highest level since 2006. There is more ice now than when he said that in 2007 when he gave it a 75% chance of there being none at all. Whatever about their still being ice, he gave a 25% margin of error but for there to be more ice now then when he said that is farcical.

And as for your graph

Peer-reviewed research suggests that at least until 2005, natural variability was responsible for half the ice decline. But exactly how big its influence is remains an open question – and as both Dr Hawkins and Prof Curry agreed, establishing this is critical to making predictions about the Arctic’s future.
Prof Curry said: ‘I suspect that the portion of the decline in the sea ice attributable to natural variability could be even larger than half.
‘I think the natural variability component of Arctic sea ice extent is in the process of bottoming out, with a reversal to start within the next decade. And when it does, the reversal period could last for several decades

Thargor

Im not dismissing it just because its the Daily Mail and I don't disagree with the data, Im dismissing it because its 2 years worth of data and ultimately irrelevant in a thread about global warming, global warming/climate change is a multi-decade event with peaks and troughs, coldest temperature ever recorded records will still get broken going forward just with less frequency, and hottest temperature records will be broken with more frequency, the last 10 years have seen 7 of the hottest years ever recorded.

Look at the way those articles are written, it's pure weasel words, Al Gore (not a climate scientist) made a prediction, the prediction turned out to be wrong, so all climate change evidence must be wrong! The poles are fine, see, they're growing! Implying the planet must be getting colder if the ice caps aren't melting!

Where is the 2 page splash with loads of flashy graphics about the ridiculous mountain of evidence that supports the case for trying to do something about our suicidal release of greenhouse gases? Can you imagine the uproar if the IPCC or NASA or someone was publishing such obviously one sided and weasel-worded presentations in support of climate change?

Peer-reviewed research suggests that at least until 2005, natural variability was responsible for half the ice decline. But exactly how big its influence is remains an open question – and as both Dr Hawkins and Prof Curry agreed, establishing this is critical to making predictions about the Arctic’s future.
Prof Curry said: ‘I suspect that the portion of the decline in the sea ice attributable to natural variability could be even larger than half.
‘I think the natural variability component of Arctic sea ice extent is in the process of bottoming out, with a reversal to start within the next decade. And when it does, the reversal period could last for several decades

What research? And even if there was what about the other 50%? The situation in Greenland and at both poles is dire, the amount of water required to raise the sea levels at a rate we're seeing as well as the heat required for thermal expansion confirms this, glaciers across the world that were perfectly healthy at the start of the 20th century are disappearing or gone.

Would any casual reader relying on the Daily Mail links you posted come away with that impression? Thats why people are a tad snobby about outlets like them, its because they distort clear peer-reviewed data to suit their agendas and fool their readers.

Weathering

The original point of this thread was to highlight over hyped doomsday predictions that didn't happen. And to draw caution when listening to future doomsday predictions. I demonstrated this throughout the thread. You are trying to belittle everything and then you are sarcastic,nice way to get your point across keep it classy. Al Gore is known for his heavy involvement with G.W and for him to make such a statement that couldn't be more wrong reflects badly. I never said I didn't believe in climate change. Most of the scaremongering,doomsday talk of 10-15 years ago turned out to be total crap that is why I am sceptical when they make doomsday predictions about the future.

MT summed it up perfectly. Go back a few pages and read it

FWVT

Thargor wrote: »

Im not dismissing it just because its the Daily Mail and I don't disagree with the data, Im dismissing it because its 2 years worth of data and ultimately irrelevant in a thread about global warming, global warming/climate change is a multi-decade event with peaks and troughs, coldest temperature ever recorded records will still get broken going forward just with less frequency, and hottest temperature records will be broken with more frequency, the last 10 years have seen 7 of the hottest years ever recorded.

Look at the way those articles are written, it's pure weasel words, Al Gore (not a climate scientist) made a prediction, the prediction turned out to be wrong, so all climate change evidence must be wrong! The poles are fine, see, they're growing! Implying the planet must be getting colder if the ice caps aren't melting!

Where is the 2 page splash with loads of flashy graphics about the ridiculous mountain of evidence that supports the case for trying to do something about our suicidal release of greenhouse gases? Can you imagine the uproar if the IPCC or NASA or someone was publishing such obviously one sided and weasel-worded presentations in support of climate change?



What research? And even if there was what about the other 50%? The situation in Greenland and at both poles is dire, the amount of water required to raise the sea levels at a rate we're seeing as well as the heat required for thermal expansion confirms this, glaciers across the world that were perfectly healthy at the start of the 20th century are disappearing or gone.

Would any casual reader relying on the Daily Mail links you posted come away with that impression? Thats why people are a tad snobby about outlets like them, its because they distort clear peer-reviewed data to suit their agendas and fool their readers.

I have no time for either Gore or the Daily Mail, Express, or any other media outlet for that matter. I trust none of them. Gore was on a personal crusade, power-trip - call it what you will - and it worked out nicely for him, with his Nobel prize. The tabloid rags, while correct for those two years, are just rags and can not be trusted to report anything impartial - on any subject.

However, I would just again like to ask that the bit in bold above not be repeatedly quoted in the current thread, which deals with the current levelling off of the warming. There has been no year-on-year warming for over a decade, however this plateau does still lie above the long-term average. Therefore, it stands to reason that most years will be among the "warmest on record". These years are also not the warmest "ever recorded". The Earth has been warmer, and we have proxy records of that.

Getting back to the sea-ice, we saw the record minimum in 2007, then multi-year recoveries, then the new record low in 2012, then now a couple of years recovery again, but I still see the trend continuing downwards for another decade or two at least. It's done it before and it will do it again, however, melting sea ice will have no affect on global sea-level. The land-ice, yes.

The Earth is warming, as it's done before, and that means ice will melt. I just disagree with the claimed extent to which we are responsible for this melt. I think it's less than is made out.

Danno

Ever wonder why there is scepticism?

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2014/08/heat-is-on-over-weather-bureau-homogenising-temperature-records/

More data fiddling, this time down under in Oz. The BOM (AusMO) have culled 40 years of data from their record books to suit an agenda.

Akrasia

Weathering wrote: »

Al Gore said in 2007 "The ice cap is falling off a cliff. It could be completely gone in summer in as little as 7 years from now"
Seven years after former US Vice-President Al Gore's warning, Arctic ice cap has expanded for second year in row. An area twice the size of Alaska - America's biggest state - was open water two years ago and is now covered in ice.

Various links covering the story


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738653/Stunning-satellite-images-summer-ice-cap-thicker-covers-1-7million-square-kilometres-MORE-2-years-ago-despite-Al-Gore-s-prediction-ICE-FREE-now.html

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/08/arctic_sea_ice_increases_by_43_over_two_years.html

http://macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/26016/56/

I'm not saying Al gore was right if he made a mad prediction that the arctic would be ice free in summer by 2014, but it's just as wrong to use a two year period where ice extent expanded from the record minimum level, as evidence that the arctic ice sheets aren't collapsing.

Young ice is much more vulnerable to melting than stonger thicker multi-year ice, so one or two consecutive warm winters and summers could see the arctic ice sheets retreat very quickly

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/09/01/global_warming_denial_claims_of_arctic_ice_recovering_are_exaggerated.html

Akrasia

Weathering wrote: »

It's a tad snobby to disregard it as the Daily mail covered it. Everything stated in the article is fact and quotes from experts in the field.

It's really not snobby to dismiss the Daily Mail as a source on Climate change

(or pretty much every other science related story)

They're as honest and reliable about climate change as Fox news are about Obama

Akrasia

Weathering wrote: »

The original point of this thread was to highlight over hyped doomsday predictions that didn't happen. And to draw caution when listening to future doomsday predictions. I demonstrated this throughout the thread. You are trying to belittle everything and then you are sarcastic,nice way to get your point across keep it classy. Al Gore is known for his heavy involvement with G.W and for him to make such a statement that couldn't be more wrong reflects badly. I never said I didn't believe in climate change. Most of the scaremongering,doomsday talk of 10-15 years ago turned out to be total crap that is why I am sceptical when they make doomsday predictions about the future.

MT summed it up perfectly. Go back a few pages and read it

The worst doomsday predictions are for what happens to our children and our grandchildren when the sea levels rise flooding many of the most important cities in the world, the corals bleach, the oceans are too acidic to support crustacians, the perma-frost in the tundra melts releasing billions of tonnes of methane into the atmosphere, the glaciers in the Alps and Andes and Himalayas etc melt and the most important rivers in the world start to dry up, when rainfall patterns shift so that the rainforests die and huge parts of the american and australian continents are cast into permanent drought conditions, when summer heatwaves bring the air temperatures too high for human survival, when there is mass emigration from areas rendered uninhabitable due to flooding, or drought or extreme heat or water shortages......

The predicted consequences of global warming for the early part of the 21st century are merely a taste of what's in store if we fail to curb our emissions in time. Anyone who argues that 'it's not so bad' needs to study the long term catestrophic effects of runaway climate change that includes the certainty of extinction events affecting huge numbers of land and water species who can not adapt in time to the mess we are making, possibly even including the human species if we include the consequences of violence and war due to the instability caused a scenario of permanent global crisis)

FWVT

Akrasia wrote: »

The worst doomsday predictions are for what happens to our children and our grandchildren when the sea levels rise flooding many of the most important cities in the world, the corals bleach, the oceans are too acidic to support crustacians, the perma-frost in the tundra melts releasing billions of tonnes of methane into the atmosphere, the glaciers in the Alps and Andes and Himalayas etc melt and the most important rivers in the world start to dry up, when rainfall patterns shift so that the rainforests die and huge parts of the american and australian continents are cast into permanent drought conditions, when summer heatwaves bring the air temperatures too high for human survival, when there is mass emigration from areas rendered uninhabitable due to flooding, or drought or extreme heat or water shortages......

The predicted consequences of global warming for the early part of the 21st century are merely a taste of what's in store if we fail to curb our emissions in time. Anyone who argues that 'it's not so bad' needs to study the long term catestrophic effects of runaway climate change that includes the certainty of extinction events affecting huge numbers of land and water species who can not adapt in time to the mess we are making, possibly even including the human species if we include the consequences of violence and war due to the instability caused a scenario of permanent global crisis)

So I guess the glass (or river) is well and truly half empty with you. All indications of impending doom, and not one reference to possible benefits or a warmer climate. Have you ever even stopped to consider of a warmer world would be all bad or have you just latched onto all the doomsday scenarios and run with them?

Sea levels started rising over 100 years ago and we had nothing to do with that. Natural rebounding from a little Ice Age will do that to an ocean system. Man had always had to move with the shifting climate, just like the animals on the African plains follow the rainy season. I totally agree that we need to curb our use of fossil fuels, not because of the alleged consequences so colourfully and over-dramatically highlighted by you above, but because we will run out of them at some stage. Why not use clean, free alternatives? THAT makes sense, not running around with overhyped baseless claims of impending doom.

OldRio

Akrasia wrote: »

The worst doomsday predictions are for what happens to our children and our grandchildren when the sea levels rise flooding many of the most important cities in the world, the corals bleach, the oceans are too acidic to support crustacians, the perma-frost in the tundra melts releasing billions of tonnes of methane into the atmosphere, the glaciers in the Alps and Andes and Himalayas etc melt and the most important rivers in the world start to dry up, when rainfall patterns shift so that the rainforests die and huge parts of the american and australian continents are cast into permanent drought conditions, when summer heatwaves bring the air temperatures too high for human survival, when there is mass emigration from areas rendered uninhabitable due to flooding, or drought or extreme heat or water shortages......

Good grief. Just, good grief. The OP is spot on about an over reaction. For evidence, read above.

Weathering

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm not saying Al gore was right if he made a mad prediction that the arctic would be ice free in summer by 2014, but it's just as wrong to use a two year period where ice extent expanded from the record minimum level, as evidence that the arctic ice sheets aren't collapsing.

Young ice is much more vulnerable to melting than stonger thicker multi-year ice, so one or two consecutive warm winters and summers could see the arctic ice sheets retreat very quickly

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/09/01/global_warming_denial_claims_of_arctic_ice_recovering_are_exaggerated.html

And one or two cold winters could increase and thicken it further. You are speculatining. Both of arguments are pointless, it is what it is now.

Thargor

Weathering wrote: »

And one or two cold winters could increase and thicken it further. You are speculatining. Both of arguments are pointless, it is what it is now.

Except the trend shows thats not the case, its getting worse over time, this is observed fact. You thinking its going to suddenly turn around for the better are the one who's "speculatining". what can you not grasp here?

FWVT

Thargor wrote: »

Except the trend shows thats not the case, its getting worse over time, this is observed fact. You thinking its going to suddenly turn around for the better are the one who's "speculatining". what can you not grasp here?

Again an out-of-date graph, where are the last couple of years?

Weathering

Akrasia wrote: »

It's really not snobby to dismiss the Daily Mail as a source on Climate change

(or pretty much every other science related story)

They're as honest and reliable about climate change as Fox news are about Obama

Once again I already answered this. I gave other links running the exact same story as the daily mail but you forgot to mention those as you want to belittle the facts as much as you can. Summer Sea ice increased by 43% since summer 2012 that is fact and it is also fact the daily mail mail reported this for this I am sorry

Weathering

Thargor wrote: »

Except the trend shows thats not the case, its getting worse over time, this is observed fact. You thinking its going to suddenly turn around for the better are the one who's "speculatining". what can you not grasp here?

Honestly Thargor are you for real. My point was you can't say it will get warmer and melt in two years and I can't say it will get colder and thicker in two years no one knows what will happen in the next two years
Chill and read PLEASE if possible

Thargor

FWVT wrote: »

Again an out-of-date graph, where are the last couple of years?

On the website of every agency that moniters these things? Are you just trolling at this stage?

Weathering

Akrasia wrote: »

The worst doomsday predictions are for what happens to our children and our grandchildren when the sea levels rise flooding many of the most important cities in the world, the corals bleach, the oceans are too acidic to support crustacians, the perma-frost in the tundra melts releasing billions of tonnes of methane into the atmosphere, the glaciers in the Alps and Andes and Himalayas etc melt and the most important rivers in the world start to dry up, when rainfall patterns shift so that the rainforests die and huge parts of the american and australian continents are cast into permanent drought conditions, when summer heatwaves bring the air temperatures too high for human survival, when there is mass emigration from areas rendered uninhabitable due to flooding, or drought or extreme heat or water shortages......

The predicted consequences of global warming for the early part of the 21st century are merely a taste of what's in store if we fail to curb our emissions in time. Anyone who argues that 'it's not so bad' needs to study the long term catestrophic effects of runaway climate change that includes the certainty of extinction events affecting huge numbers of land and water species who can not adapt in time to the mess we are making, possibly even including the human species if we include the consequences of violence and war due to the instability caused a scenario of permanent global crisis)

I hope you and Thargor are very happy together in your bunker when all of this happens

Weathering

Trolling thargor? You are one to talk. latching on to what I said to Ark and taking it out of context while you already knew this just to repeat yourself and post another little graph

Thargor

Weathering wrote: »

Honestly Thargor are you for real. My point was you can't say it will get warmer and melt in two years and I can't say it will get colder and thicker in two years no one knows what will happen in the next two years
Chill and read PLEASE if possible

And why exactly are you bothering making that point? I cant predict for certain that ISIS are going to kill a few more people in the next 2 weeks, whoop-de-doo, but I know its highly likely they will. If we manage to find and zoom in on a specific 2 day period where ISIS doesnt kill anyone between now and Christmas will the daily mail be running a 2 page feature on how all the predictions about genocide were false and just liberal scare mongering?

Is there some known mechanism in nature that might suddenly reverse the decades of catastrophic ice loss at the poles in the next 2 years? Not a hope but according to you we cant rule it out.

Thargor

Weathering wrote: »

Trolling thargor? You are one to talk. latching on to what I said to Ark and taking it out of context while you already knew this just to repeat yourself and post another little graph

"Another little graph" that FWTV just asked me to post

The one that proves my point? Oh no how could I?

Weathering

Thargor wrote: »

"Another little graph" that FWTV just asked me to post

The one that proves my point? Oh no how could I?

You supplied that graph and quoted me in relation to my post to ark so that's a blatant lie there. Does your graph have magical powers? We we discussing Arctic sea in two years from now. Look forward to your next sarcastic little answer

If he asked you for the graph why post me with it then. Just a little troll

Akrasia

FWVT wrote: »

So I guess the glass (or river) is well and truly half empty with you. All indications of impending doom, and not one reference to possible benefits or a warmer climate. Have you ever even stopped to consider of a warmer world would be all bad or have you just latched onto all the doomsday scenarios and run with them?

The glass isn't half empty, it's 98% empty. There's possibly a few drops of liquid clinging to the side of the glass, but not many.
The main upside to global warming is that much of the technology we require to prevent the worst impacts of global warming would be extremely beneficial to the future global economy. However, this is not so much an upside to global warming, as an upside to tackling global warming.

Sea levels started rising over 100 years ago and we had nothing to do with that. Natural rebounding from a little Ice Age will do that to an ocean system.

Yes, scientists know about the post glaciation rebound effect but the current sea level increases are far faster than can be explained by this alone, and the rate of melting of the glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica is way higher due to global warming this increasing the impact of the rebound on top of the thermal expansion and meltwater impacts on sea levels.

Just this week, the team behind Cryosat released data showing that the amount of melting in Greenland and Antarctica is way beyond the amount we previously thought. Things aren't getting better, they're getting worse.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/24/incredible-polar-ice-loss-cryosat-antarctica-greenland

Man had always had to move with the shifting climate, just like the animals on the African plains follow the rainy season. I totally agree that we need to curb our use of fossil fuels, not because of the alleged consequences so colourfully and over-dramatically highlighted by you above, but because we will run out of them at some stage. Why not use clean, free alternatives? THAT makes sense, not running around with overhyped baseless claims of impending doom.

The last time Man was forced to migrate to avoid climate change, The population fell to only a few tens to thousands of individuals, and our friends the Neandarthal were wiped out entirely.

The logistics behind enforced mass movements of populations in a world with 8+ billion people point in only one direction. Disasterous geopolitical upheaval.

If we can keep the temperature increases to below 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels, we have a chance that we can avoid the worst consequences, but the higher above 2 degrees we go, the more and more were become locked into disasterous, irreversible climate change.

Thargor

Weathering wrote: »

You supplied that graph and quoted me in relation to my post to ark so that's a blatant lie there. You does graph have magical powers? We we discussing Arctic sea in two years from now. Look forward to your next sarcastic little answer

If he asked you for the graph why post me with it then. Just a little troll

No magic powers required, it already lets us extrapolate a trend into the future with 95% confidence limits, do you see it magically pulling out of that nosedive? What data would you use for that prediction?

Lumi

Mod Note

Thargor wrote: »

On the website of every agency that moniters these things? Are you just trolling at this stage?

Weathering wrote: »

Look forward to your next sarcastic little answer....
...Just a little troll

Calling other posters Trolls on thread is not on guys! Cut it out or infractions will follow. If you have an issue with a post/poster then report it and let the mods deal with it

Akrasia

OldRio wrote: »

Good grief. Just, good grief. The OP is spot on about an over reaction. For evidence, read above.

It's not an over reaction to say that a nuclear war between russia and the U.S could end life as we know it on earth

Neither is it an over-reaction that runaway climate change could prove catestrophic for life on earth. Venus is not the kind of atmosphere we should emulate.
It's a spectrum, If we can limit global warming to below 2 degrees above 1900's temperature, then we will have some negative effects and there will be environmental damage, but we should be able to cope by adapting to the new conditions

At 2 degrees, we'll see worse consequences but still, if we can limit it to 2 degrees, managable (hopefully)

But we are still incertain of what the climate sensitivity to doubling the earth's CO2 concentration will be. The range of probability is between 2 degrees (best case scenario) and 4.5 degrees (realistic worst case scenario) If we are very lucky and can limit out CO2 emissions AND the best case scenario climate sensitivity is correct, then we'll scrape through this by the skin of our teeth. If we're unlucky and we're facing 4.5 degrees warming, then we're looking into the jaws of another global extinction event. it's genuinely that serious.
http://skepticalscience.com/climate-best-to-worst-case-scenarios.html

Weathering

Thargor wrote: »

No magic powers required, it already lets us extrapolate a trend into the future with 95% confidence limits, do you see it magically pulling out of that nosedive? What data would you use for that prediction?

I honestly do not know what you are arguing for. I made an off the cusp remark to akr when he said the 2 years of ice growth could be undone within 2 years of warming and I said we don't know what will happen in the next two years. Did I mention long term? No. You are trying to twist my words. You seem to think so tho and love any opportunity to imply as such. I said all along I believe in climate change just not the doomsday predictions and have reservations with such predictions. I do not believe climate change will be as drastic as you or ark. I won't continue to repeat myself.

I will let you and ark to continue mentioning Nuclear war,Obama and Isis. All things relevant to this discussion

Supercell

Not sure it its already posted on this thread. Here's an excerpt from an interesting article on News Scientist - No more pause: Warming will be non-stop from now on

Enjoy the pause in global warming while it lasts, because it's probably the last one we will get this century. Once temperatures start rising again, it looks like they will keep going up without a break for the rest of the century, unless we cut our greenhouse gas emissions.

The slowdown in global warming since 1997 seems to be driven by unusually powerful winds over the Pacific Ocean, which are burying heat in the water. But even if that happens again, or a volcanic eruption spews cooling particles into the air, we are unlikely to see a similar hiatus, according to two independent studies.