"Did the coal miners canary just flutter?"

[Rockstar]

"So what happens if global temperatures take a real plunge for a sustained period? Don’t worry, the explainers have that one covered as well James Hansen, former NASA GISS Director, published a paper which suggests global warming will trigger a short ice age in the near future.

No matter what happens to the weather, the climate explainers shamelessly cobble together an explanation which blames bad weather on your sinful lifestyle."


It’s cold outside, but that doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real.
Sammy Roth, USA TODAY Published 5:13 p.m. ET Dec. 28, 2017

[Schroeder]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

"So what happens if global temperatures take a real plunge for a sustained period? Don’t worry, the explainers have that one covered as well James Hansen, former NASA GISS Director, published a paper which suggests global warming will trigger a short ice age in the near future.

No matter what happens to the weather, the climate explainers shamelessly cobble together an explanation which blames bad weather on your sinful lifestyle."


It’s cold outside, but that doesn’t mean climate change isn’t real.
Sammy Roth, USA TODAY Published 5:13 p.m. ET Dec. 28, 2017

And these are the types of posts why I don't even bother anymore. You don't want to understand it and therefore it's pointless.

[Rockstar]

You have probably heard that melting permafrost is a big contributor to increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, and that melting permafrost may even cause an unstoppable acceleration of global warming.
New research, however, supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), counters this widely-held scientific view that thawing permafrost uniformly accelerates atmospheric warming, indicating instead that certain arctic lakes store more greenhouse gases than they emit into the atmosphere.
The study, published this week in the journal Nature, focuses on thermokarst lakes, which occur as permafrost thaws and creates surface depressions that fill with melted fresh water, converting what was previously frozen land into lakes.
The research suggests that arctic thermokarst lakes are “net climate coolers” when observed over longer, millennial, time scales.

-------

Two years ago during the scorching summer of 2012, July 1936 lost its place on the leaderboard and July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the United States. Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA’s own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be “adjustable” in NOAA’s world.

-------

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

------

A widely reported “pause” in global warming may be an artefact of scientists looking at the wrong data, says a climate scientist at theEuropean Space Agency.
Global average sea surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s but have been relatively flat for the past 15 years. This has prompted speculation from some quarters that global warming has stalled.
Now, Stephen Briggs from the European Space Agency’s Directorate of Earth Observation says that sea surface temperature data is the worst indicator of global climate that can be used, describing it as “lousy”.
“It is like looking at the last hair on the tail of a dog and trying to decide what breed it is,” he said on Friday at the Royal Society in London.
Climate scientists have been arguing for some time that the lack of warming of the sea surface is due to most of the extra heat being taken up by the deep ocean. A better measure, he said, was to look at the average rise in sea levels. The oceans store the vast majority of the climate’s heat energy. Increases in this stored energy translate into sea level rises.

------

[Rockstar]

weather.com/storms/winter/news/2017-12-28-arctic-record-cold-outbreak-forecast-midwest-east-south-new-year-2018


Brrrrr this global warming is so hot its cold.

[Schroeder]

14°C (59°f) here. It should be in the freezing area but you can almost walk outside without a jacket. Doesn't prove much on it's own though.
And global isn't the same as local but you don't want to get that.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Dowly

No need to post the graphs or anything.

Here, let me help you.

UAH6.0, from 1980 to present shows warming:


GISTEMP, from 2000 shows warming:


Even the skeptic Dr.Roy Spencer shows on his site (which you have linked to in this thread) that the UAH6.0 data shows warming from 1979:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

Yes but read the complete story

We have performed some calculations of the sensitivity of the final product to various assumptions in the processing, and find it to be fairly robust. Most importantly, through sensitivity experiments we find it is difficult to obtain a global LT trend substantially greater than +0.114 C/decade without making assumptions that cannot be easily justified.

[Rockstar]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

14°C (59°f) here. It should be in the freezing area but you can almost walk outside without a jacket. Doesn't prove much on it's own though.
And global isn't the same as local but you don't want to get that.

Oh I do get it. Looking back at glacial boundaries of the last ice age North America had substantially more ice compared to Europe. Even back it was warmer where you live than was where I do now. Its cool to see how the boundaries of the arctic air mass currently over the U.S. seemingly come close to those glacial boundaries. And no I'm not a weather man, scientist, or climate expert, and it wasn't meant to imply anything it was just an observation.

What I don't get is dogma

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

Yes but read the complete story

We have performed some calculations of the sensitivity of the final product to various assumptions in the processing, and find it to be fairly robust. Most importantly, through sensitivity experiments we find it is difficult to obtain a global LT trend substantially greater than +0.114 C/decade without making assumptions that cannot be easily justified.

I did, and what they are talking about is the corrected trend for 1979-2014 in the v6 dataset they have produced.

Here is the paragraph above the one you posted:

The new LT trend of +0.114 C/decade (1979-2014) is 0.026 C/decade lower than the previous trend of +0.140 C/decade, but about 0.010 C/decade of that difference is due to lesser sensitivity of the new LT weighting function to direct surface emission by the land surface, which surface thermometer data suggests is warming more rapidly than the deep troposphere. The remaining 0.016 C/decade difference between the old and new LT product trends is mostly due to the new diurnal drift adjustment procedure and is well within our previously stated range of uncertainty for this product’s trend calculation (+/- 0.040 C/decade).

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/...-0-11-cdecade/

And more importantly, none of that shows cooling as you claimed in the initial post I replied to.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Rockstar

You have probably heard that melting permafrost is a big contributor to increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, and that melting permafrost may even cause an unstoppable acceleration of global warming.
New research, however, supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), counters this widely-held scientific view that thawing permafrost uniformly accelerates atmospheric warming, indicating instead that certain arctic lakes store more greenhouse gases than they emit into the atmosphere.
The study, published this week in the journal Nature, focuses on thermokarst lakes, which occur as permafrost thaws and creates surface depressions that fill with melted fresh water, converting what was previously frozen land into lakes.
The research suggests that arctic thermokarst lakes are “net climate coolers” when observed over longer, millennial, time scales.

The study concludes saying:

Permafrost temperatures are increasing in Siberia, as in most of the
Arctic. Global annual air temperature increases as little as 1.5 C, less
than the projected 1.9 C–3.7 C air temperature increase by 2100 AD,
should lead to pronounced reductions in permafrost stability. Our
results suggest that if new, deep thermokarst lakes continue to form by
localized permafrost thaw, then primary productivity and sedimentation
in lakes, particularly tundra lakes where aquatic productivity is expected to increase, will compensate
for greenhouse emissions over millennial timescales if a permafrostforming climate persists in the region.

Thermokarst lakes depend on permafrost for an impermeable base
that constrains water drainage. Widespread permafrost loss, predicted as early as 2100 in some yedoma subregions, will ultimately
result in reduced lake and wetland abundance caused by drainage and
drying, facilitating rapid sediment carbon decomposition. Even partial
mineralization of the alas carbon pool, together with the surrounding
Pleistocene-yedoma carbon that remains may reverse the important role thatthermokarst lakes have had in stabilizing climateforthe past
5,000 years.

https://news.uaf.edu/wp-content/uplo...thony13560.pdf

Two years ago during the scorching summer of 2012, July 1936 lost its place on the leaderboard and July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the United States. Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA’s own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be “adjustable” in NOAA’s world.

Data is improved constantly. Yes, July 1936 was 0.02C warmer according to the new data at the time.

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

The temperatures were adjusted because there were factors that had changed. The type of instrument used to take the measurement, the location and time of day when the measurement was taken had all changed in this case which didn't provide consistent measurements in the long run. Nothing to do with "fabrication".

Read: http://berkeleyearth.org/understandi...perature-data/

[August]

Here is the reality of the situation:

[Dowly]

The maker of that graph says:

Notice that emissions grew much more sharply than population from 1950 onwards, with the only exceptions being during the economic recessions of the early 1980’s, early 1990’s, and around 2000. Since 2000, emissions have been growing at something close to double the population growth rate. So, I think that effectively explodes the myth that population growth alone explains emissions growth.

http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2009...ssions-growth/

[Sean C]

Here's what I find a bit humorous: when I remark [somewhat facetiously] that "I'll trust the climate science a little more when they can accurately predict the weather more than a week out.", I'm told that "Climate is entirely different form weather." But, now that we've gotten some extreme weather in some areas, some people are seeming to suggest that it is evidence of climate change.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm [mostly] kidding here. I understand the difference between climate and weather. I understand that weather is very complex and occurs over extremely short periods relative to climate and that climate is a more stable, long term trend of the type of weather in a given area. But I do wonder about graphics such as the one posted by Gargamel on page 4 of this thread.

I mean sure, we have a record of global climate going back millions of years thanks to ice cores, etc., so we can develop a picture of the trend the climate has followed for these time periods. Now we are comparing that trend to an observed drastic change in a brief period of recent years. But, how sure are we that changes like the one we are seeing now didn't happen in the past? Is it at all possible that dramatic swings occurred in the past? Take another look at that graphic - between 16,000 and 15,500 B.C.E. A note there explains that spikes in climate may be "smoothed out [...] but only if they're small or brief enough". Small, short spikes are absolutely possible. Large, longer changes are unlikely.

But, even unlikely is very different from impossible. If we were to judge solely by our observations, the possibility of life elsewhere in our galaxy or even the universe seems unlikely. For all of our searching, we have found no evidence of life, intelligent or otherwise, anywhere other than right here on Earth. But do we then surmise that the possibility does not exist? Do we call off the search? Certainly not. As long as we cannot prove that something does not exist (which, contrary to a seemingly popular belief, is entirely scientifically possible), we must admit that its existence is possible. And for the sake of bettering our understanding of our universe, we keep searching.

Now, recently the popular question to pose to "climate change deniers"* has become "What do you have to gain from your position?" My answer would be: "The same thing that those in the media who are promoting the idea have to gain ... money." Regardless of what side you are on, you cannot deny that politicians and scientists benefit financially from the "man made climate change" theory. Scientists receive grants to study the global climate, and those who publish results contrary to the "accepted" narrative often become ostracized. Persona non grata ... laughing stocks. So the impetus is there to find in favor of the theory. Whether or not that has actually had a bearing on various individual studies is another argument.

Likewise, politicians propose and implement "carbon taxes": money that will be taken from individuals (don't think for a minute that businesses paying the tax will eat those losses themselves) and funneled into ever growing government budgets. And is the tax being paid by various entities globally proportional to the amount of pollution they're producing? IOW, are those deemed most responsible footing most of the bill?

Again, don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that the theory is wrong. I'm simply not totally convinced ... one way or the other. And I'm hesitant to jump on board with a plan that costs the taxpayer when the science, contrary to what has been asserted, is most certainly not settled. You can point out that the recent climate change is directly correlated with a recent rise in pollutant production by humans until the cows come home. I could also tell you how every time I pass gas there's a thunderstorm. Does that mean that my farts cause lightning? No, of course not. Correlation does not imply causation. In order to do that we'd have to somehow show that without those pollutants, the climate would not have changed. And how do we do that?

I'm not against a cleaner environment, more renewable fuels and a better, longer future for mankind. Who would be? Let's absolutely keep researching that. But does that end justify these means? What if we all just pay the tax and keep on polluting? Government gets richer and we all die anyway. And what if there's another cause? One that we could mitigate in other ways? One that we didn't see because we were all so sure we already knew the answer? Let's keep searching, too.

Just some things to think about...

*Personally, I don't know of anyone who denies the fact that the climate is changing ... just those who question what the main factor is which is driving it.

[Highbury]

Scientists or pseudo-scientists on either side can say whatever they like.

In the city where I live (Vancouver BC) the city is bordered by mountains on the North side. Big mountains, three of them have major ski areas and one was used in the 2010 Olympics.

When I was a kid they were covered with snow 365 days a year. Now they are not and haven't been for well over 10 years. They had to make and truck in snow for the olympics.

So people can argue about graphs, heat waves and cold spikes all they like. The change is visible.

[Rockstar]

But why is the big question. Is it because of too many cows farting in our pastures, co2 or a negative east Pacific decadel oscillation? Politicians find it easier to raise your taxes as the flit about promoting agendas to cure global warming if they make you think the warming is your fault. You can't cure a EPDO though its nature just doing what does.

[Schroeder]

Just to put things into relation:
http://blunt-science.tumblr.com/post...th-john-oliver