Why I think Climate Change Denial is little more than pseudoscience. - Part 1

[xrayzebra]

New Study Provides More Evidence That Global Warming ‘Pause’ Is A Myth

It’s one of the most oft-used arguments put forth by climate deniers: that there has been “no global warming” for the last 17 years, as evidenced by a supposed lack of increase in global average surface temperature.
It’s also one of the most oft-debunked, as overwhelming evidence has shown that most of the heat generated from increased carbon emissions gets absorbed into the ocean, not into the atmosphere. What’s more, scientists believe global temperatures are set to rise rapidly in the face of our increasingly warm and acidic oceans.

Still, the idea that warming has been absorbed more and more by the ocean and not as much by the atmosphere has presented a good question for scientists: Why? Why, even as greenhouse gases have continued to concentrate in our atmosphere, have global air surface temperatures remained somewhat steady for the last several years? And where in the ocean has that heat actually gone?
The answer, according to a study published in the journal Science on Friday, is that much of the heat missing from the atmosphere has been stored deep in the Atlantic Ocean, drawn in by a once slow-moving current that seems to have sped up in the beginning of the 21st century. The sped-up current has been able to pull down heat almost a mile into the ocean, according to the paper’s authors, oceanographer Xianyao Chen of the Ocean University of China and atmospheric scientist Ka-Kit Tung of the University of Washington.
Because of the sped-up current, Chen and Tung say that the North and South Atlantic oceans have been storing more energy than the rest of the world’s oceans combined since the year 2000.
“We found the missing heat,” Chen said, according to a research article published alongside the study in Science.



http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ming-atlantic/

And they just keep on getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Australian Bureau of Meteorology accused of Criminally Adjusted Global Warming


http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-L...Global-Warming

Global warming is a myth.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And they just keep on getting caught with their hand in the cookie jar.

Australian Bureau of Meteorology accused of Criminally Adjusted Global Warming


http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-L...Global-Warming

Global warming is a myth.

accusation. . . . breitbart. . . .

Think for yourself, bibleboy.

[xrayzebra]

accusation. . . . breitbart. . . .

Think for yourself, bibleboy.

You know peachfuzz, if you had a brain you would take it out and play with it, along with your other play thing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You know peachfuzz, if you had a brain you would take it out and play with it, along with your other play thing.

So you think breitbart is legitimate, objective journalism? breitbart and british think tanks are you contribution to this discussion.

I don't really care if you won't argue with me. I have made my point that you are a hack.

[CosmicCowboy]

accusation. . . . breitbart. . . .

Think for yourself, bibleboy.

Fuzzy shoving his foot deep into his mouth again.

What a surprise.

Google is your friend, anklebiter.

http://www.chron.com/news/media/Aust...-Of-137364.php

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy shoving his foot deep into his mouth again.

What a surprise.

Google is your friend, anklebiter.

http://www.chron.com/news/media/Aust...-Of-137364.php

So I am supposed to come up with credible source for you guys? Bravo, you did what should have been done in the first place.

Further the post on the chron is a repost of the breitbart piece and not even their own work. Credible original sources are my friends.

[CosmicCowboy]

Houston Chronicle did not source Breitbart anywhere in the page.

So now, in Fuzzys eyes anyone that reports on the story is just reposting Breitbart?

I admit Breitbart can be sketchy just like the National Enquirer but they both have a consistent history of occasionally finding real breaking news stories long before the mainstream media picks it up.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Houston Chronicle did not source Breitbart anywhere in the page.

So now, in Fuzzys eyes anyone that reports on the story is just reposting Breitbart?

I admit Breitbart can be sketchy just like the National Enquirer but they both have a consistent history of occasionally finding real breaking news stories long before the mainstream media picks it up.

The chron piece is word for word the exact same as the original breitbart piece. Critical thinking skills. ffs, did you even read either or?

What is at dispute is how the Aussie normalize their data from their various data sources. You will recall the discussion regarding the urban heat effect on urban sensors and BEST.

Not all sensors and locations are created equal. If that is the case yet you want to unify all the data in one place then you have to normalize the data. At no point does the breitbart piece actually discuss the parameters of their normalization. They just cherry pick some locations where the normalization increased the base value and wave their hands.

Fact is when you take nationwide data from thousand upon thousands of datapoints, you have to normalize it. It's precisely why in the US we did the BEST project to review the normalization of the surface temperature record. If there is a mistake in their work then fine let's get down to the bottom of it. Last time the Koch bros of the world put their money where their mouth was regarding this issue they lost because BEST approved the interpretation of the urban heat effect and other anomalies.

[RandomGuy]

Yawn...

Yes, we already know the geothermal and volcanic activity is melting western Antarctica. It's part of the "ring of fire," you know.




As for Greenland, can you say "soot on ice?"

Any explanation but the one the actual scientists studying it have concluded.

Interesting bit about greenhouse gas emissions deep in the ocean:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/underwat...tlantic-coast/

[Wild Cobra]

Any explanation but the one the actual scientists studying it have concluded.

Interesting bit about greenhouse gas emissions deep in the ocean:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/underwat...tlantic-coast/

Yes this is an interesting thing.

What is your explanation? Afterall, if it's a new phenomena, then shouldn't the rising sea level place more pressure on the gas, keeping it in liquid form?

If it's been occurring all the time, then it just shows we are still learning so many things we didn't know before.

Did you know that one idea behind the Bermuda Triangle with missing plane and ships was methane outgassing? A large eruption under a ship could cause the density of water with the bubbles to lower enough to sink a ship. The methane outgassing in the air can stall the old style propeller aircraft engines.

[RandomGuy]

Afterall, if it's a new phenomena, then shouldn't the rising sea level place more pressure on the gas, keeping it in liquid form?.

I'll let you think about that statement for a little while. Let me know if/when you get it.

[SnakeBoy]

What is your explanation? Afterall, if it's a new phenomena, then shouldn't the rising sea level place more pressure on the gas, keeping it in liquid form?

Sorry WC, but stop making RG look good.

[RandomGuy]

if it's a new phenomena, then shouldn't the rising sea level place more pressure on the gas, keeping it in liquid form?

I will take it you haven't figured it out yet. When I get a bit of time later this weekend, I will flesh it out for you.

It might help if you read the link, although your statement ignores both the link that mentions some potential sources, and some basic physics applicable to your statement, referring to other buried solid methane.

[TeyshaBlue]

[Wild Cobra]

I will take it you haven't figured it out yet. When I get a bit of time later this weekend, I will flesh it out for you.

It might help if you read the link, although your statement ignores both the link that mentions some potential sources, and some basic physics applicable to your statement, referring to other buried solid methane.

I was being silly. The biggest problem I have is the thought they are new in the Atlantic. Methane Hydrates occur in the equatorial and polar regions, why not the temperate too?

For them to be a "new outgassing" then either the temperature is increasing, or the pressure is decreasing. Apparently, the temperature effect is overriding the increased pressure increase from the sea level rise.

[DarrinS]

Whatever Happened to Global Warming?

On Sept. 23 the United Nations will host a party for world leaders in New York to pledge urgent action against climate change. Yet leaders from China, India and Germany have already announced that they won’t attend the summit and others are likely to follow, leaving President Obama looking a bit lonely. Could it be that they no longer regard it as an urgent threat that some time later in this century the air may get a bit warmer?

In effect, this is all that’s left of the global-warming emergency the U.N. declared in its first report on the subject in 1990. The U.N. no longer claims that there will be dangerous or rapid climate change in the next two decades. Last September, between the second and final draft of its fifth assessment report, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change quietly downgraded the warming it expected in the 30 years following 1995, to about 0.5 degrees Celsius from 0.7 (or, in Fahrenheit, to about 0.9 degrees, from 1.3).

Even that is likely to be too high. The climate-research establishment has finally admitted openly what skeptic scientists have been saying for nearly a decade: Global warming has stopped since shortly before this century began.

First the climate-research establishment denied that a pause existed, noting that if there was a pause, it would invalidate their theories. Now they say there is a pause (or “hiatus”), but that it doesn’t after all invalidate their theories.

Alas, their explanations have made their predicament worse by implying that man-made climate change is so slow and tentative that it can be easily overwhelmed by natural variation in temperature—a possibility that they had previously all but ruled out.

When the climate scientist and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an article in 2006 saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures, there was an outcry. A year later, when David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point, the environmentalist and journalist Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was “wrong, completely wrong,” and was “deliberately, or otherwise, misleading the public.”

We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was wrong. Two years before Mr. Whitehouse’s article, climate scientists were already admitting in emails among themselves that there had been no warming since the late 1990s. “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998,” wrote Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2005. He went on: “Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”

If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. A report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.”

Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That’s according to a new statisticalcalculation by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.

It has been roughly two decades since there was a trend in temperature significantly different from zero. The burst of warming that preceded the millennium lasted about 20 years and was preceded by 30 years of slight cooling after 1940.

This has taken me by surprise. I was among those who thought the pause was a blip. As a “lukewarmer,” I’ve long thought that man-made carbon-dioxide emissions will raise global temperatures, but that this effect will not be amplified much by feedbacks from extra water vapor and clouds, so the world will probably be only a bit more than one degree Celsius warmer in 2100 than today. By contrast, the assumption built into the average climate model is that water-vapor feedback will treble the effect of carbon dioxide.

But now I worry that I am exaggerating, rather than underplaying, the likely warming.

Full story here.

[boutons_deux]

the pause in some temperatures as proof that you AGW-denying BigCarbon shills/ s are right (and therefore there should be NO profit-reducing regs on BigCarbon pollution ) has been debunked.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What happens to the temperature of an ice bath when you add heat to it?

Well, I think people can agree that there has been warming, you know, in recent years. The question is whether or not it’s 100 percent anthropogenic, which means man-made. So I’ll leave that to the experts to discuss on that. But as it relates to the coast, you’re absolutely right, the studies show in the last few years that we average about 4 feet of erosion per year. Some counties are experiencing as high as 20 […] I mean, how do we respond in an effective way to hurricanes, or the next category 3, 4 or 5 [hurricane] that hits the greater Houston metropolitan area? I mean, that’s something that honestly keeps me up at night.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...xtreme-weather

You should see what they are saying in GOP circles in Florida. Darrin's ship is sinking.

[boutons_deux]

AGW-denying BigCarbon's refineries along the Gulf Coast, like S. Louisiana, Houston, Corpus Christi (esp Kock Bros), etc, all under water in 2100.

[SnakeBoy]

AGW-denying BigCarbon's refineries along the Gulf Coast, like S. Louisiana, Houston, Corpus Christi (esp Kock Bros), etc, all under water in 2100.

So what?

[SnakeBoy]

So who's going?

http://www.crossroads-summit.com/

[Cry Havoc]

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...wide-says-nasa

August 2014 was marginally the warmest August worldwide since records began 130 years ago, according to new data from Nasa’s Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies.

Temperatures measured by government meteorological offices using land, sea and satellite data suggest this year’s global high was very close to those of 2011, 2008, 2006 and 2003. Overall, temperatures were 0.70C above the 1951-1990 baseline temperature average.

But Nasa warned against reading too much into a single month’s records. “The key issue for climate are the long-term trends, not individual months”, said Nasa-GISS director Gavin Schmidt.

2014 is shaping up to be an exceptionally warm year, with March 2014 the third hottest since 1880, and May and June the hottest ever.


----

It's cool that these warming trends have paused.

[DarrinS]

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...wide-says-nasa

August 2014 was marginally the warmest August worldwide since records began 130 years ago, according to new data from Nasa’s Goddard Ins ute for Space Studies.

Temperatures measured by government meteorological offices using land, sea and satellite data suggest this year’s global high was very close to those of 2011, 2008, 2006 and 2003. Overall, temperatures were 0.70C above the 1951-1990 baseline temperature average.

But Nasa warned against reading too much into a single month’s records. “The key issue for climate are the long-term trends, not individual months”, said Nasa-GISS director Gavin Schmidt.

2014 is shaping up to be an exceptionally warm year, with March 2014 the third hottest since 1880, and May and June the hottest ever.


----

It's cool that these warming trends have paused.

52 excuses for the pause

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/1...-now-up-to-52/

[Cry Havoc]

52 excuses for the pause

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/1...-now-up-to-52/

Sooooo we're in the middle of one of the hottest years in history, and your response is to bring up a site that says we've paused the warming trend? Is logic just at a premium where you're from?

[Cry Havoc]

wattsupwiththat as a legitimate news source.