So, why aren't the dire predictions coming true? Why didn't they foresee this "natural variability" (as you called it) when they were preaching doom and gloom 15-20 years ago?so 10's of thousands of peer reviewed scientists are all wrong but the oil lobby and their 1% of scientists all with obvious financial motives akin to the theological motives of the church are wrong. Your analogy is apt but reversed.
You gave about 50 actual climate scientists and that is being generous with some and you cannot even articulate their arguments.
I posted the Academy publication for a reason as it is the best description of what the scientific community feels. It even considers the counter arguments. You clearly do not want to talk on that level but accuse others of fanaticism and faith above reason and logic.
It's horse . You are about as monolithic politically as one can be. Mindlessly so.
ARe the oceans warming? Is the sea level rising? Are the frequency and intensity of storms increasing?
Yes and yes and yes.
It is obvious that you are fixating on what Hansen claimed and acting like that is the consensus. Read the NAS article I posted and quit fixate on your spoonfed ideology from your blogs and the like.
blog, blog, blog.
what do confirmation bias mean?
First one says deep ocean. I said ocean. try again.
Second one is a blog that cites ONE scientist all by his self. This is typical nonsense from the denier community. Compare and contrast with the mul ude of insurance and scientific experts that disagree. I guess flood insurance is impossible to come by because it's fun!
The last one seems to not understand how actuaries work and handwaves at Al Gore again.
http://www.claimsjournal.com/news/na.../17/215578.htmA new study by Munich Re shows that North America has been most affected by weather-related extreme events in recent decades. The publication “Severe Weather in North America” analyzes all kinds of weather perils and their trends. It reports and shows that the continent has experienced the largest increases in weather-related loss events.
For the period concerned – 1980 to 2011 – the overall loss burden from weather catastrophes was $1,060 billion (in 2011 values). The insured losses amounted to $510 billion, and some 30,000 people lost their lives due to weather catastrophes in North America during this time frame. With $62.2 billion insured losses and overall losses of $125 billion (in original values) Hurricane Katrina in 2005 was the costliest event ever recorded in the US. Katrina was also the deadliest single storm event, claiming 1,322 lives.
Last guy does a nice job of cherrypicking data. The above is the insures industries aggregate.
Of course, none of the "peer-reviewed papers," you claim support your position on AGW, are ever discussed in blogs.
Exactly what you're doing.
The article actually supported much of what you believe but, the opening paragraph exemplifies the kind of "unsettled" science you and your ilk refuse to believe exists.
So, Fuzzy, did or did not "many climate scientists" predict the world's deep oceans would be significantly warmer than they were in 2005? It's a legitimate question. And, if they did and the oceans have not, in fact, gotten warmer, why not? Were the "climate scientists'" predictions wrong? Why? Inquiring minds want to know...we don't want to be told to just shut up and go with the dogma that man-made climate change is real and it's a threat to all mankind.New research from NASA and several civilian research partners has produced findings that will no doubt intensify the controversy over global climate change — though the researchers themselves are quick to point out that in their view, the findings do not call climate change into question. The team has found that, contrary to what many climate scientists had predicted, the world’s deep oceans have not gotten significantly warmer since 2005. That’s of particular interest because for several years the rate of increase in global surface temperature has been falling off — Earth is still getting hotter, but not as quickly as expected. Now, NASA has reopened the mystery of the missing heat, by showing that the deep oceans are not soaking up this heat; it must be going somewhere else. But where?
That's really at the center of this debate -- your side of the argument wants to silence ALL dissent and vilifies anyone who dares to propose an alternate point of view. , some places are trying to criminalize dissent on the climate debate.
All I'm saying is, the science isn't settled and you should be open to reasonable debate. But, you're not.
Well, that ONE scientist happens to be one, Dr. Axel Mörner who, over the past 35 years has probably studied global sea level changes more than anyone in your distinguished list of climate scientists, as chair of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. I don't know if that's significant but, hey, it's got international in the le, just like the IPCC!
Again, his credentials aren't the most important part of the article...
Is this true? Are the other assertions made by Dr. Mörner true? Are they even worthy of debate? Seems to me these are the types of assertions that would at least lead a faithful follower of the AGW religion, such as yourself, to want to counter and not just yell them down. What are the flaws in his findings?One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".
Well, to be fair, your crowd lauded Al Gore as a savior and climate visionary before he was shown by our side to be a baffoon who scare-mongered his way into millions in speaking fees and carbon credits.
And the charts Professor Pielke used to demonstrate extreme climate events are neither more severe nor frequent, are from sources where you can study and refute the internals, if you want to discredit them. Be advised, the first two charts, claiming weather-related losses (as a percentage of GDP) haven't risen since 1990 and catastrophic losses (as a percentage of GDP) haven't risen since 1960, are from companies chocked full of actuaries who probably do understand how actuaries work.
Also, I note how those who point to Katrina as proof of the severity of storms since Global Climate Change became "a thing" always -- ALWAYS -- fail to note that Katrina was a category 3 storm when it made landfall near New Orleans and that the vast majority of damage was not due to the storm's direct affects but due to the failure of an aging levee system that (because of good 'ol Democrat corruption) hadn't been maintained for DECADES, even though the powers that be had been warned it would fail if a major hurricane struck the New Orleans area.
Unlike the predictions of your climate scientists, those people knew what they were talking about.
Say, Fuzzy, here's a peer-reviewed article by several climate scientists who claim there is compelling evidence to show your climate scientists are wrong about something I seem to recall Manny dropping in this forum every chance he got; it also speaks to the first link in my last post about deep oceans not getting warmer...
Uncertainty in the magnitude of aerosol-cloud radiative forcing over recent decades
Here's the blog from where I found the peer-reviewed paper.
The Tempering Effect of the Oceans on Global Warming
For us simpletons, I understand this paper is explaining that the oceans' absorb the vast majority of the heat generated by global climate change but, unlike what you claim, due to the seemingly limitless capacity of the oceans to store such heat, there has been a negligible affect on the temperature of said oceans at depth. So, like the first article of my other post said, the oceans aren't getting warmer. From what I gather, it's kind of like claiming your core temperature of 98.6 degrees changes simply because your skin feels warm from the sun.
That in uncertainty of one forcing which happens to not be CO2 forcing. Then your blog head makes a whole bunch of assumptions about the more beneficial for his conclusion range being true and draws conclusions based off of this.
Remember how I talked about handwaving at one particular thing and aggrandizing it? You are doing it again. The WUWT blog is not peer reviewed and all that about the oceans applying to the rest is his assertion.
It's obvious that you are not going to believe in sea level rise despite reports out of the east and west coasts. You are willfully ignorant.
Way to keep the tone civil, Fuzzy.
So, you're saying his assessment of the peer-reviewed paper he cited is flawed?
I am saying that it is not peer reviewed and from an obvious sophist source. The paper in question is only one forcing and then he then tries to combine that with another peer reviewed paper regarding thermal layer energy transfer.
I do not disagree that there is uncertainty regarding aerosol forcing and energy transfer between thermal layers in the ocean. Those are what the papers in question state and nothing more.
From the link to the paper:
So, they're lying?This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review but has not been through the copyediting, typesetting, pagination and proofreading process, which may lead to differences between this version and the Version of Record. Please cite this article as doi: 10.1002/2014GL062029
And that has zero affect on the IPCC's settled science on anthropogenic global climate change?
The Abstract from the paper seems to disagree with you over the significance of this type forcing...
Last edited by Yonivore; 12-01-2014 at 05:40 PM.
Yoni...
I don't know why you think you can convert someone from their religious beliefs.
The hiatus not being a forced response is not saying what you think it does. They are not excluding a cyclical issue ie the earth's wobble or el nino effect. I will once again refer to the BEST analysis that attributes it to a cyclical issue ie ENSO and other cycles as opposed to specific forcings.
Once more it says nothing of CO2 forcing.
The University of Leeds paper is valid. What you are you citing is the link between that and the paper on the ocean which is all WUWT. And what makes you think that they do not consider aerosol forcing data? You just don't really understand what it is saying.
No, but what it explicitly says in its abstract is, "...making it harder to explain the temperature hiatus as a forced response." They don't differentiate between any types of forcing other than to say their findings on the "aerosol cloud abledo effect"..."made it harder [for climate scientists claiming so] to explain the temperature hiatus as a forced response." I'm guessing they wouldn't have made that a fundamental part of the abstract if climate scientists weren't claiming the temperature hiatus was a response to some forcing issue -- of some kind -- which they assert their finding now makes more problematic.
Actually, I relying completely on the abstract which seems to say it is difficult for climate scientists to claim any type of forcing can explain the temperature hiatus.
And again, the BEST report subsumes all of that because they attribute it to the ENSO and two other CYCLES which are not FORCINGS.
You completely miss the point. Pointing out that aerosols contribute to global warming and do not counteract it like once believed does not posit what you want it to.
Actually, they're not backing me; I'm merely posting what you asked for; peer-reviewed papers by climate scientists that suggest, perhaps, the science on anthropogenic global climate change isn't settled after all.
No, no, I get it. Now that forcing is out, the AGCC crowd has moved the goal post to the "ENSO and two CYCLES which are not FORCINGS." When last I exchanged posts with Manny, it was all about the "forcing." Now that science has made that problematic, it's all about something else.
I get it.
Fact remains, the IPCC models are not in agreement with reality.
Last edited by Yonivore; 12-01-2014 at 08:08 PM.
You have found an article that said that aerosols were a positive forcing and could not be used to describe the hiatus. I point you to the BEST:
http://static.berkeleyearth.org/memo...-the-pause.pdf
That is a very good paper discussing the different ideas for the hiatus. Aerosols are only one of the discussed. What you will note is that 'man made carbon emissions are irrelevant' is not within the scientific literature despite your handwaving and wishful thinking in that direction.
Fact, remains that you blanket dismissal is bull .
There are several models used and some are more accurate than others. You are handwaving at the high end outputs and trying to paint the whole as that. Read the BEST article and the NAS article I linked and quit getting your science from shills posing as blogs. At least you stopped linking GWPC garbage.
No you posted WUWT conclusions from those papers. You can try and sever the blog from what you are saying but the papers do not come to the same conclusion that you and WUWT no matter how much you bleat.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote