All I'm saying about that article in particular is that it is pretty clear that only USA data was used and actually has no real relevance on Global Warming. At best, you could say that the findings suggest no warming has occurred in America (as of 1989, mind you) despite other studies referenced in the same article showing a global effect.I could be wrong, but I think you guys are on the same page. He, and I am assuming here, is stating that the US version was manipulated to reflect that of current political messages. Don't forget, one of the very first things ronnie raygun did was to remove the solar panels on the whitehouse that Jimmy Carter put up there.
So if our commander in chief doesn't want to pursue solar as a viable source of energy, why the fvck should we?? drill baby drill!
The so called "pause" was an observed slow down in warming in the mid troposphere as modeled from satellite data.
Settled by whom? Pandering "scientists" virtue signaling group think?
The data is trash.
Let me setup an analogy to show why this is nothing more than verbal diarrhea spewed by gullible physics deniers.
There is no doubt that mankind has contributed to global warming... but the $64 question is how much of this warming is natural vs. anthropogenic. ECS estimates in numerous recent studies are coming in at the low end of the range average noted in AR5 (3.2C). This is good news...at least for some of us.
Those are valid concerns. And I certainly deplore the frequent dishonest behavior shown in climate science. But without any doubt, we can say:Hope to gain? Keeping energy cheap and plentiful.
To slow down the rate of our change, to hold off the economic impacts of more expensive energy.
Could you explain what is going on with the chart better?
...In a paper we recently covered, a team led by Berkeley researcher Zeke Hausfather compared the updated sea surface temperature dataset to shorter but simpler and independent sets of measurements made by satellites and automated floats. That analysis confirmed that the updated dataset is more accurate than its predecessor.
In a post for Carbon Brief, Hausfather noted that NOAA’s updated dataset doesn't cause it to show more warming than the datasets run by NASA, the Berkeley team, and the UK Met Office. Instead, the update caused NOAA to stop showing less warming than everyone else.
The House Science Committee’s Twitter account has yet to tweet a link to Hausfather's story.
Hausfather also points out a glaring error in the Mail on Sunday article that illustrates its author’s lack of knowledge. The article includes a graph of both the NOAA and UK Met Office records. The NOAA data appears to be roughly 0.1°C warmer than the UK Met Office data across the entire time span—supposedly evidence of “flawed NOAA data showing higher temperatures.” Apart from the fact that a constant offset would have no impact on temperature trends, the offset is simply a mistake. The numbers in the two datasets are calculated relative to different baselines—the 1901-2000 average for NOAA, and the 1961-1990 average for the Met Office. Once you put them on a common baseline, the differences largely disappear.
Those are valid concerns. And I certainly deplore the frequent dishonest
behavior shown in climate science.
And by"always tends to" you actually meant "7-20 times as fast as it tends to do in interglacials".But without any doubt, we can say:
1. The world is getting hotter. (As it always tends to do in interglacials.)
2. CO2 is at historically high levels, due substantially to manmade emissions.
3. CO2 at current levels probably has more deleterious effects than beneficial effects, given that plants tend to become limited by other factors in the 400+ ppm range.
4. Alternative energy is amazingly advanced today, mainly lacking in storage (which can be overcome through things like demand reservoir storage and quick-spooling, relatively clean natural gas turbine generation as necessary.)
5. Costs for coal (and sometimes petroleum) usually don't include very real environmental costs and damage. (If we kill a stream with a coal tar slide and don't clean it up there is no cost, but there's a hell of a cost in national value.)
We should definitely punish scientists who intentionally misrepresent or forge data.
But an alternative energy economy is fairly practical today, and large scale adoption would help make it even more practical. Besides the initial investment - which is admittedly huge even by federal government standards - energy in an economy of existing hydro plus solar, wind, geothermal, etc. wouldn't necessarily be that much more expensive, especially if efficiency is similarly driven via government's giant carrot and stick.
If we're going to reward companies with tax write-offs, let's aim for something higher than today's meh Energy Star.
"The entire North polarized cap will disappear in five years.”
-Al Gore, 2008
Oct. 7, 2014
Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum
So we're supposed to take your word for it that the graphic somehow misrepresents all those studies cited...without you providing one shred of contrary evidence. Got it.I bet a right wing think tank with a long history of funding climate change deniers is an excellent source as to what the current science says! No bias there!
By the way, there has been a lot of study as to how much of the recent warming trend has been due to human influences as opposed to natural ones. The answer is basically: 'the vast majority of it'.
North is not South."The entire North polarized cap will disappear in five years.”
-Al Gore, 2008
Oct. 7, 2014
Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum
Climate models have a lot of problems...with overestimated ECS being one of them.That's not the point.
This is :
"The climate models do not get it right at this point," Kaleschke said. "The models project a decrease of Antarctic sea ice, which is in contrast with observations."
So we're supposed to take your word for it that the graphic somehow misrepresents all those studies cited...without you providing one shred of contrary evidence. Got it.
"The entire North polarized cap will disappear in five years.”
-Al Gore, 2008
Oct. 7, 2014
Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum
"The entire North polarized cap will disappear in five years.”
-Al Gore, 2008
Oct. 7, 2014
Antarctic Sea Ice Reaches New Record Maximum
Those are valid concerns. And I certainly deplore the frequent dishonest behavior shown in climate science. But without any doubt, we can say:
1. The world is getting hotter. (As it always tends to do in interglacials.)
2. CO2 is at historically high levels, due substantially to manmade emissions.
3. CO2 at current levels probably has more deleterious effects than beneficial effects, given that plants tend to become limited by other factors in the 400+ ppm range.
4. Alternative energy is amazingly advanced today, mainly lacking in storage (which can be overcome through things like demand reservoir storage and quick-spooling, relatively clean natural gas turbine generation as necessary.)
5. Costs for coal (and sometimes petroleum) usually don't include very real environmental costs and damage. (If we kill a stream with a coal tar slide and don't clean it up there is no cost, but there's a hell of a cost in national value.)
So the reality here is that you don't any facts to suggest that the ECS studies I cited are somehow inaccurate, misrepresented or in any way biased. You have nothing...other than your long history of extreme bias...which, ironically, I am told shouldn't be trusted uncritically.Nope, you're just supposed to recognize that sources with a long history of extreme bias on an issue aren't to be trusted uncritically, something that should be obvious. As a great example, I told Atreus21 that citing a heavily Christian site as to the views of the founding fathers on religion was a bad idea. Sure enough, it turned out at least one of the quotes from that site was fabricated.
So the reality here is that you don't any facts to suggest that the ECS studies I cited are somehow inaccurate, misrepresented or in any way biased. You have nothing...other than your long history of extreme bias...which, ironically, I am told shouldn't be trusted uncritically.
My point stands...recent scientific studies indicate that current ECS value estimates are significantly lower than originally estimated.
So the reality here is that you don't any facts to suggest that the ECS studies I cited are somehow inaccurate, misrepresented or in any way biased. You have nothing...other than your long history of extreme bias...which, ironically, I am told shouldn't be trusted uncritically.
We demonstrate that the Loehle and Scafetta model systematically underestimates the transient climate response, due to a number of unsupportable assumptions regarding the climate system. Once the flaws in Loehle and Scafetta's model are addressed, the estimates of transient climate response and equilibrium climate sensitivity derived from the model are entirely consistent with those obtained from general circulation models, and indeed exclude the possibility of low climate sensitivity, directly contradicting the principal conclusion drawn by Loehle. Further, we present an even more parsimonious model for estimating climate sensitivity. Our model is based on observed changes in radiative forcings, and is therefore constrained by physics, unlike the Loehle model, which is little more than a curve-fitting exercise.
Attributing climate change to natural and anthropogenic causes cannot be performed reliably using such a naïve correlative model, as the conclusions are so heavily dependent on the modelling assumptions. Instead a model more closely based on physics should be used, as the behaviour of the model is then more strongly constrained by physical plausibility.
My point stands...recent scientific studies indicate that current ECS value estimates are significantly lower than originally estimated.
Numerous recent studies indicate that it is indeed true that ECS has been over-estimated by the IPCC...are you a denier?Even if that were true, it wouldn't change the fact that humans are skewing climate change and that we should do something about it. What's there to gain by artificially propping up the fossil fuel industry and suppressing all climate change science?
Only 21 more studies to go...all effectively saying the same thing.You didn't cite any studies, you cited the Cato Institute's graph where they selected a group of studies. I decided to look up the first one they listed and sure enough, it's a study by a climate change denier whose 'study' was so ineptly done that it achieved this response:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380014004876
Their model wasn't even based on physics. lol. That was literally the first listed study and already we know they are including ineptly made garbage. As usual, untrustworthy sources prove themselves to be untrustworthy but you never learn.
It sure doesn't as the only evidence you've provided for it is a chart made by a climate change denial advocate.
As always, pride seems to be stopping you from admitting you yet again cited a source because it told you what you wanted to hear instead of stopping to check if the source was credible.