An interesting read, although not all here will like it.

>>In general, scientists are a pretty mild and inoffensive bunch. But over the last decade, one specific group of scientists has come in for a lot of criticism. So let’s dive into the topic of ‘the pause in global warming’.

In the USA, the Wall Street Journal wrote, “temperatures have been flat for 15 years – nobody can properly explain it.”

Another newspaper from the same stable, the UK Daily Mail wrote “global warming ‘pause’ may last 20 more years, and Arctic sea ice has already started to recover”. Both of these statements are very reassuring, but unfortunately, very very wrong.

With regard to this ‘pause’, there are two major claims made by those who deny the science of climate change.
The first one is that the climate is actually cooling – not warming. This is incorrect.

The second claim is that after some previous warming, the global climate is now constant, and neither warming nor cooling. In other words, that the climate is in a kind of holding pattern, or haitus. This is also incorrect.

So let’s look at the claim that the surface temperatures have not increased since 1998.

But first, why the year 1998? Why not 1997, or 1999?

It turns out that the year 1998 was a very, very hot year. It took until 2005, and then 2010, until we had hotter years.

The year 1998 was very hot due to a few factors. The major factor was that 1998 was the most severe example of an El Niño year for over a century.

El Niño?

In the Pacific Ocean, there is a repeating pattern of El Niño events and La Niña events. El Niño years are hotter, and here the Pacific Ocean releases its heat to the atmosphere.

On the other hand, La Niña events are cooler, and here the Pacific Ocean sucks heat from the atmosphere.

You can see how this could affect the global climate, especially when you consider that by itself, the Pacific Ocean is bigger than all the land masses on Earth added together.

Let me get back to 1998. In that severe El Niño year, the Pacific Ocean dumped about 42 zetajoules of energy into the atmosphere. (By the way, “zeta” means “1” followed by 21 zeros, so it’s a really big number).

To put that into perspective, each year, the human race generates about half-a-zetajoule of energy in its power stations. The amount of heat energy that the Pacific Ocean released into the atmosphere in 1998 was about 80 times more than the energy generated by the human race in that calendar year of 1998.

So for a while, 1998 topped the charts for the hottest year on record.

We then had record-breaking heat waves in Europe in 2003. In 2010, the hottest year so far, the record-breaking summer heat and fires were responsible for the deaths of 50,000 people in Russia.

This was followed by record-breaking heat waves in the USA in July 2012, and in Australia in January 2013.

Globally, in 2014, we had the hottest May and June ever on record, and the equal-warmest April. And let’s not forget that 13 of the 14 warmest years on record have happened in the 21st-century.

Let me also point out that the hottest years on record ever, 2005 and 2010, happened during a La Niña-dominated period – when you would expect cooling.

So it’s very wrong to claim that surface temperatures are cooling. It’s also very wrong to claim that surface temperatures are constant. The climate is still heating up.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/09/16/4088609.htm

This was followed by record-breaking heat waves in the USA in July 2012, and in Australia in January 2013.

We did?

>>And let’s not forget that 13 of the 14 warmest years on record have happened in the 21st-century.

There’s the clincher. It must be carbon dioxide.

Otherwise, the global temperature would be completely steady at the same level as 1883. Its simple really.

My sarcasm detector is vibrating madly.

:)

We can expect the pseudo-skeptics to take any reduction of the long-term upward trend to be evidence of global flattening, or even cooling, but what I don’t get is why even some proper scientists seem to accept this.

I mean even the arch pseudo-skeptics graphs show a clear continuing upward trend:

sibeen said:

My sarcasm detector is vibrating madly.

:)

Recalibrate it. It must be wrong…

sibeen said:

My sarcasm detector is vibrating madly.

:)

Yes, it’s good to see that morrie finally accepts that a slight flattening of long term trend does not indicate that the trend has reversed.

buffy said:

sibeen said:

My sarcasm detector is vibrating madly.

:)

Recalibrate it. It must be wrong…

wave it in the air in an figure 8 pattern, that should do it

morrie said:

>>And let’s not forget that 13 of the 14 warmest years on record have happened in the 21st-century.

There’s the clincher. It must be carbon dioxide.

Otherwise, the global temperature would be completely steady at the same level as 1883. Its simple really.

—

I would think that rising sea level would tell you that the planet is warming.

Correlating tidal high marks should tell.

tauto said:

morrie said:

>>And let’s not forget that 13 of the 14 warmest years on record have happened in the 21st-century.

There’s the clincher. It must be carbon dioxide.

Otherwise, the global temperature would be completely steady at the same level as 1883. Its simple really.

—

I would think that rising sea level would tell you that the planet is warming.

Correlating tidal high marks should tell.

Yep, that’s right. The seas have been rising for thousands of years.

I’ll say it…I don’t think ‘since 1998’ qualifies as ‘long term’. In planetary terms. Even in my lifetime terms.

And 1979 isn’t long term enough either.

sibeen said:

This was followed by record-breaking heat waves in the USA in July 2012, and in Australia in January 2013.

We did?

Apparently, but not as hot as September 2013:

sibeen said:

tauto said:

morrie said:

>>And let’s not forget that 13 of the 14 warmest years on record have happened in the 21st-century.

There’s the clincher. It must be carbon dioxide.

Otherwise, the global temperature would be completely steady at the same level as 1883. Its simple really.

—

I would think that rising sea level would tell you that the planet is warming.

Correlating tidal high marks should tell.

Yep, that’s right. The seas have been rising for thousands of years.

—-

At what rate?

buffy said:

And 1979 isn’t long term enough either.

Has someone suggested that 1979 0r 1998 do qualify as long term?

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

My sarcasm detector is vibrating madly.

:)

Yes, it’s good to see that morrie finally accepts that a slight flattening of long term trend does not indicate that the trend has reversed.

Not too many people think it isn’t getting warmer.
Whether this is natural variation or not is much less clear. Remember that the artic was ice free 6000 years ago.

The warmists love to lump all opposition to the anthropogenic theory into the class of ‘deniers’ who believe that there isn’t an upward trend over the last hundred years or so.
The fact is, the upward trend in average global temperatures, the measure used by James Hansen back in 1980 isn’t matching the alarmist predictions. But the alarmists can’t accept that.

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

And 1979 isn’t long term enough either.

Has someone suggested that 1979 0r 1998 do qualify as long term?

A graph a few posts back.

sibeen said:

tauto said:

morrie said:

>>And let’s not forget that 13 of the 14 warmest years on record have happened in the 21st-century.

There’s the clincher. It must be carbon dioxide.

Otherwise, the global temperature would be completely steady at the same level as 1883. Its simple really.

—

I would think that rising sea level would tell you that the planet is warming.

Correlating tidal high marks should tell.

Yep, that’s right. The seas have been rising for thousands of years.

This would seem to suggest that sea levels have not been rising significantly for 1000’s of years:

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

My sarcasm detector is vibrating madly.

:)

Yes, it’s good to see that morrie finally accepts that a slight flattening of long term trend does not indicate that the trend has reversed.

Not too many people think it isn’t getting warmer.
Whether this is natural variation or not is much less clear. Remember that the artic was ice free 6000 years ago.

The warmists love to lump all opposition to the anthropogenic theory into the class of ‘deniers’ who believe that there isn’t an upward trend over the last hundred years or so.
The fact is, the upward trend in average global temperatures, the measure used by James Hansen back in 1980 isn’t matching the alarmist predictions. But the alarmists can’t accept that.

No, that is quite wrong. The fact is temperature trends to date are entirely consistent with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.

Evidence that anthropogenic GHG emissions are not a problem is nowhere near sufficient to accept this hypothesis; indeed the evidence suggests that it is likely that they are a problem.

buffy said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

buffy said:

And 1979 isn’t long term enough either.

Has someone suggested that 1979 0r 1998 do qualify as long term?

A graph a few posts back.

I’m pretty sure that no graph posted this evening has been labelled “long term”.

It was only the other day that I was listening to the US Secretary of State explaining how Genesis instructs us to act on global warming.
It was John Kerry, the guy Obama has sent to sort out the middle east and he knows a lot about it, starting with Genesis.

Anyway I’d say that the seas started rising after Chapter 10 ~6000 years ago.
And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

tauto said:

—

I would think that rising sea level would tell you that the planet is warming.

Correlating tidal high marks should tell.

Yep, that’s right. The seas have been rising for thousands of years.

This would seem to suggest that sea levels have not been rising significantly for 1000’s of years:

You hid that on purpose, didn’t you!

:)

Peak Warming Man said:

It was only the other day that I was listening to the US Secretary of State explaining how Genesis instructs us to act on global warming.
It was John Kerry, the guy Obama has sent to sort out the middle east and he knows a lot about it, starting with Genesis.

Anyway I’d say that the seas started rising after Chapter 10 ~6000 years ago.
And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

Could you re-post the actual statement made by Mr Kerry, I seem to have missed it.

Thanks,

I found this image

you could have live cable for the fan

another separate live cable for the light

the neutral cable for a common return

fans can be tricky things , older types have big transformers , newer types have a tiny box of electronics that controls power to fan and possible light

this might help below,

I found this image

you could have live cable for the fan

another separate live cable for the light

the neutral cable for a common return

fans can be tricky things , older types have big transformers , newer types have a tiny box of electronics that controls power to fan and possible light

this might help below,

>No, that is quite wrong. The fact is temperature trends to date are entirely consistent with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.

That isn’t what I said. I said that they are not matching predictions.

And I notice that you use the term hypothesis. That kind of supports what I have said really.

sibeen said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

Yep, that’s right. The seas have been rising for thousands of years.

This would seem to suggest that sea levels have not been rising significantly for 1000’s of years:

You hid that on purpose, didn’t you!

:)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise#mediaviewer/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

The Rev Dodgson said:

sibeen said:

tauto said:

—

I would think that rising sea level would tell you that the planet is warming.

Correlating tidal high marks should tell.

Yep, that’s right. The seas have been rising for thousands of years.

This would seem to suggest that sea levels have not been rising significantly for 1000’s of years:

with those pics rev. click on image and open in new tab. click on that image and save address. use that one to link. works most of the time.

global warming might not be the right word

I word have called it climate volatility

the thing is this

if theres nothing to it then ok , no probs

if there is something to it , we have a major problem, there is no habitable planet within cooee of our technology, theres no plan B if we wreck the climate

morrie said:

>No, that is quite wrong. The fact is temperature trends to date are entirely consistent with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.

That isn’t what I said. I said that they are not matching predictions.

And I notice that you use the term hypothesis. That kind of supports what I have said really.

It isn’t possible to “predict” what temperatures will be in 10 or 20 years time (as I suspect you know well).

I really don’t understand how you think calling a hypothesis a hypothesis supports what you have said?

The only significant question is this: is the hypothesis that continued increase of GHG emissions will not cause significant problems in the future sufficiently well supported by the evidence that we don’t need to do anything to reduce them? I can’t see how anyone can answer yes to that question.

wookiemeister said:

global warming might not be the right word

I word have called it climate volatility

the thing is this

if theres nothing to it then ok , no probs

if there is something to it , we have a major problem, there is no habitable planet within cooee of our technology, theres no plan B if we wreck the climate

I would like to introduce a new term ‘cautionist’.
I think Rev fits into that category.
So do I, to some extent.

JudgeMental said:

with those pics rev. click on image and open in new tab. click on that image and save address. use that one to link. works most of the time.

Thought that’s what I did :)

morrie said:

wookiemeister said:

global warming might not be the right word

I word have called it climate volatility

the thing is this

if theres nothing to it then ok , no probs

if there is something to it , we have a major problem, there is no habitable planet within cooee of our technology, theres no plan B if we wreck the climate

I would like to introduce a new term ‘cautionist’.
I think Rev fits into that category.
So do I, to some extent.

So does almost everyone who you like to lump into the category “alarmist”.

maybe three times. first one from the wiki page. should end up with just the pic in the browser window.

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

>No, that is quite wrong. The fact is temperature trends to date are entirely consistent with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.

That isn’t what I said. I said that they are not matching predictions.

And I notice that you use the term hypothesis. That kind of supports what I have said really.

It isn’t possible to “predict” what temperatures will be in 10 or 20 years time (as I suspect you know well).

I really don’t understand how you think calling a hypothesis a hypothesis supports what you have said?

The only significant question is this: is the hypothesis that continued increase of GHG emissions will not cause significant problems in the future sufficiently well supported by the evidence that we don’t need to do anything to reduce them? I can’t see how anyone can answer yes to that question.

I don’t think you would want to be seen as a denier. But clearly you are not a believer either. Your argument has consistently been about the need for caution. I think that, like me, you can see that establishing cause and effect is a lot more difficult than some suggest.

I don’t disagree with the cautious approach.

I do get frustrated with some of the emotive claims and poor logic that I see bandied about.

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

wookiemeister said:

global warming might not be the right word

I word have called it climate volatility

the thing is this

if theres nothing to it then ok , no probs

if there is something to it , we have a major problem, there is no habitable planet within cooee of our technology, theres no plan B if we wreck the climate

I would like to introduce a new term ‘cautionist’.
I think Rev fits into that category.
So do I, to some extent.

So does almost everyone who you like to lump into the category “alarmist”.

Do you think so? There is a lot of opinion out there that says the science is established and that 97% of scientist subscribe to it.

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

wookiemeister said:

global warming might not be the right word

I word have called it climate volatility

the thing is this

if theres nothing to it then ok , no probs

if there is something to it , we have a major problem, there is no habitable planet within cooee of our technology, theres no plan B if we wreck the climate

I would like to introduce a new term ‘cautionist’.
I think Rev fits into that category.
So do I, to some extent.

So does almost everyone who you like to lump into the category “alarmist”.

When I think about it, so do most of the people lumped into ‘denier’.

Perhaps this might be a common middle ground.

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

>No, that is quite wrong. The fact is temperature trends to date are entirely consistent with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming.

That isn’t what I said. I said that they are not matching predictions.

And I notice that you use the term hypothesis. That kind of supports what I have said really.

It isn’t possible to “predict” what temperatures will be in 10 or 20 years time (as I suspect you know well).

I really don’t understand how you think calling a hypothesis a hypothesis supports what you have said?

The only significant question is this: is the hypothesis that continued increase of GHG emissions will not cause significant problems in the future sufficiently well supported by the evidence that we don’t need to do anything to reduce them? I can’t see how anyone can answer yes to that question.

I don’t think you would want to be seen as a denier. But clearly you are not a believer either. Your argument has consistently been about the need for caution. I think that, like me, you can see that establishing cause and effect is a lot more difficult than some suggest.

I don’t disagree with the cautious approach.

I do get frustrated with some of the emotive claims and poor logic that I see bandied about.

The point is there is no sensible division into “deniers” and believers”.

The question is, are we sufficiently confident that it isn’t a problem that we don’t need to do anything about it?

My answer is that we are nowhere near sufficiently confident; in fact I think it is very likely that it is a problem.

If you don’t disagree with the cautious approach why do you only ever post stuff casting doubt on the cautious approach?

Why do you never express your frustration with the emotive claims and poor logic of the pseudo-skeptics?

Here is the problem….

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9j_j-cUwKc

>If you don’t disagree with the cautious approach why do you only ever post stuff casting doubt on the cautious approach?

Why do you never express your frustration with the emotive claims and poor logic of the pseudo-skeptics?

Why do you always appear to support the alarmist view?

morrie said:

>If you don’t disagree with the cautious approach why do you only ever post stuff casting doubt on the cautious approach?

Why do you never express your frustration with the emotive claims and poor logic of the pseudo-skeptics?

Why do you always appear to support the alarmist view?

Because it isn’t an alarmist view, it is a sensible cautionist view.

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

>If you don’t disagree with the cautious approach why do you only ever post stuff casting doubt on the cautious approach?

Why do you never express your frustration with the emotive claims and poor logic of the pseudo-skeptics?

Why do you always appear to support the alarmist view?

Because it isn’t an alarmist view, it is a sensible cautionist view.

I disagree.

morrie said:

>If you don’t disagree with the cautious approach why do you only ever post stuff casting doubt on the cautious approach?

Why do you never express your frustration with the emotive claims and poor logic of the pseudo-skeptics?

Why do you always appear to support the alarmist view?

—-

Alarmist? When over 90 % of scientists hold a view then it is a consensus..

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

>If you don’t disagree with the cautious approach why do you only ever post stuff casting doubt on the cautious approach?

Why do you never express your frustration with the emotive claims and poor logic of the pseudo-skeptics?

Why do you always appear to support the alarmist view?

Because it isn’t an alarmist view, it is a sensible cautionist view.

I disagree.

What do you disagree with?

You claim to support a cautionary approach, so how can you not support cautionary action?

On Q&A last night Brian Schmidt said

quote -

“Ah, I’m afraid the climate is going to convince everyone here >>pretty quickly<< !”

“the evidence from the warming of the oceans, (not the atmosphere notice) I think in the >>next ten years<< is going to become pretty convincing so that most of the reasonable sceptics are going to drop out”.

Can’t wait… & when the oceans haven’t warmed I’ll look forward to hearing Schmidt’s & all the other ‘reasonable’ alarmists excuses for how they got it so wrong.

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Because it isn’t an alarmist view, it is a sensible cautionist view.

I disagree.

What do you disagree with?

>>I do not believe the view that it is possible to establish a clear link between anthropogenic drivers and global average temperatures, based on the observed data, nor to predict the future course of average global temperatures with any degree of accuracy. I challenge you to disagree with me.

You claim to support a cautionary approach, so how can you not support cautionary action?

>>I have never opposed cautionary action, just OTT alarmist nonsense.<<

morrie said:

>>I do not believe the view that it is possible to establish a clear link between anthropogenic drivers and global average temperatures, based on the observed data, nor to predict the future course of average global temperatures with any degree of accuracy. I challenge you to disagree with me.

The basic science and the climatic record both suggest that there is a clear link between CO2 levels and climate change, and CO2 emission and atmospheric level records suggest that the increasing levels of CO2 are largely due to human emissions. That is a clear probable link established. It’s not certain, but it is highly likely.

As for predicting future temperatures, no they can’t be predicted with any accuracy, but the trend can be predicted with a reasonable degree of probability, and the deviation from the trend could be in either direction.

Hence the fact that future temperatures are more uncertain than some scientists appear to believe is a strong reason for additional caution, not less.

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

I disagree.

What do you disagree with?

>>I do not believe the view that it is possible to establish a clear link between anthropogenic drivers and global average temperatures, based on the observed data, nor to predict the future course of average global temperatures with any degree of accuracy. I challenge you to disagree with me.

You claim to support a cautionary approach, so how can you not support cautionary action?

>>I have never opposed cautionary action, just OTT alarmist nonsense.<<

Morrie, most things you say are illogical and contradict what the vast majority of scientists predict on the matter of global warming. I am amazed that you never seem to come in contact with the many who have expressed considerable alarm via the media, yet here you call them and those who take them seriously alarmists.

You profess to be a scientist, yet you ignore so much scientific information from those who know considerably more than you or me. So just what is going on inside your head, because it does not make sense.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbn6a0AFfnM

the original

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

What do you disagree with?

>>I do not believe the view that it is possible to establish a clear link between anthropogenic drivers and global average temperatures, based on the observed data, nor to predict the future course of average global temperatures with any degree of accuracy. I challenge you to disagree with me.

You claim to support a cautionary approach, so how can you not support cautionary action?

>>I have never opposed cautionary action, just OTT alarmist nonsense.<<

Morrie, most things you say are illogical and contradict what the vast majority of scientists predict on the matter of global warming. I am amazed that you never seem to come in contact with the many who have expressed considerable alarm via the media, yet here you call them and those who take them seriously alarmists.

You profess to be a scientist, yet you ignore so much scientific information from those who know considerably more than you or me. So just what is going on inside your head, because it does not make sense.

Silly me..
I can see now that all the global warming since 1883 is due to greenhouse gases and that the global mean temperature would otherwise have been unchanged.

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Morrie, most things you say are illogical and contradict what the vast majority of scientists predict on the matter of global warming. I am amazed that you never seem to come in contact with the many who have expressed considerable alarm via the media, yet here you call them and those who take them seriously alarmists.

You profess to be a scientist, yet you ignore so much scientific information from those who know considerably more than you or me. So just what is going on inside your head, because it does not make sense.

Silly me..
I can see now that all the global warming since 1883 is due to greenhouse gases and that the global mean temperature would otherwise have been unchanged.

Well morrie, that is not what I said or what involved scientists have said, but probably does reflect your misguided thought processes on this matter.

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

Morrie, most things you say are illogical and contradict what the vast majority of scientists predict on the matter of global warming. I am amazed that you never seem to come in contact with the many who have expressed considerable alarm via the media, yet here you call them and those who take them seriously alarmists.

You profess to be a scientist, yet you ignore so much scientific information from those who know considerably more than you or me. So just what is going on inside your head, because it does not make sense.

Silly me..
I can see now that all the global warming since 1883 is due to greenhouse gases and that the global mean temperature would otherwise have been unchanged.

Well morrie, that is not what I said or what involved scientists have said, but probably does reflect your misguided thought processes on this matter.

You are right. The magic date is 1951.

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Silly me..
I can see now that all the global warming since 1883 is due to greenhouse gases and that the global mean temperature would otherwise have been unchanged.

Well morrie, that is not what I said or what involved scientists have said, but probably does reflect your misguided thought processes on this matter.

You are right. The magic date is 1951.

If you say so.

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

Well morrie, that is not what I said or what involved scientists have said, but probably does reflect your misguided thought processes on this matter.

You are right. The magic date is 1951.

If you say so.

Not me, the IPCC.
IPCC (11 November 2013): D. Understanding the Climate System and its Recent Changes, in: Summary for Policymakers (finalized version), in: IPCC AR5 WG1 2013, p. 13

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

You are right. The magic date is 1951.

If you say so.

Not me, the IPCC.
IPCC (11 November 2013): D. Understanding the Climate System and its Recent Changes, in: Summary for Policymakers (finalized version), in: IPCC AR5 WG1 2013, p. 13

As you obviously have all the information at your finger tips, perhaps you might like to share?

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

If you say so.

Not me, the IPCC.
IPCC (11 November 2013): D. Understanding the Climate System and its Recent Changes, in: Summary for Policymakers (finalized version), in: IPCC AR5 WG1 2013, p. 13

As you obviously have all the information at your finger tips, perhaps you might like to share?

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is “extremely likely” that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951 and 2010. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as indicating a probability of 95 to 100%, based on an expert assessment of all the available evidence.

Conversely, it is logical to conclude that without human intervention, it is extremely likely that there would have been no global warming and the temperature would have stayed essentially unchanged. However unlikely that might be in the overall scheme of things.

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Not me, the IPCC.
IPCC (11 November 2013): D. Understanding the Climate System and its Recent Changes, in: Summary for Policymakers (finalized version), in: IPCC AR5 WG1 2013, p. 13

As you obviously have all the information at your finger tips, perhaps you might like to share?

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is “extremely likely” that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951 and 2010. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as indicating a probability of 95 to 100%, based on an expert assessment of all the available evidence.

Conversely, it is logical to conclude that without human intervention, it is extremely likely that there would have been no global warming and the temperature would have stayed essentially unchanged. However unlikely that might be in the overall scheme of things.

>>Silly me..
I can see now that all the global warming since 1883 is due to greenhouse gases and that the global mean temperature would otherwise have been unchanged.<<

No serious argument from me, but why mention 1883, is that another way point?

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

As you obviously have all the information at your finger tips, perhaps you might like to share?

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is “extremely likely” that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951 and 2010. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as indicating a probability of 95 to 100%, based on an expert assessment of all the available evidence.

Conversely, it is logical to conclude that without human intervention, it is extremely likely that there would have been no global warming and the temperature would have stayed essentially unchanged. However unlikely that might be in the overall scheme of things.

>>Silly me..
I can see now that all the global warming since 1883 is due to greenhouse gases and that the global mean temperature would otherwise have been unchanged.<<

No serious argument from me, but why mention 1883, is that another way point?

I was referring to the start of the temperature increase in the instrumental record.

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is “extremely likely” that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951 and 2010. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as indicating a probability of 95 to 100%, based on an expert assessment of all the available evidence.

Conversely, it is logical to conclude that without human intervention, it is extremely likely that there would have been no global warming and the temperature would have stayed essentially unchanged. However unlikely that might be in the overall scheme of things.

>>Silly me..
I can see now that all the global warming since 1883 is due to greenhouse gases and that the global mean temperature would otherwise have been unchanged.<<

No serious argument from me, but why mention 1883, is that another way point?

I was referring to the start of the temperature increase in the instrumental record.

Okay, now do you wish to make a point from these statistics and your interpretation of them?

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

>>Silly me..
I can see now that all the global warming since 1883 is due to greenhouse gases and that the global mean temperature would otherwise have been unchanged.<<

No serious argument from me, but why mention 1883, is that another way point?

I was referring to the start of the temperature increase in the instrumental record.

Okay, now do you wish to make a point from these statistics and your interpretation of them?

No. I can see that the temperature would have stayed at 1883 levels if it were not for our influence. And it would have stayed at that level for the foreseeable future. It is clearly the earth’s natural temperature.

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

I was referring to the start of the temperature increase in the instrumental record.

Okay, now do you wish to make a point from these statistics and your interpretation of them?

No. I can see that the temperature would have stayed at 1883 levels if it were not for our influence. And it would have stayed at that level for the foreseeable future. It is clearly the earth’s natural temperature.

Are you sure? It doesn’t sound very logical to me. The world’s temperatures are influenced by world events, of which we are the current one, or don’t you think putting billons of tons of greenhouse gasses into the environment will have any affect?

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

Okay, now do you wish to make a point from these statistics and your interpretation of them?

No. I can see that the temperature would have stayed at 1883 levels if it were not for our influence. And it would have stayed at that level for the foreseeable future. It is clearly the earth’s natural temperature.

Are you sure? It doesn’t sound very logical to me. The world’s temperatures are influenced by world events, of which we are the current one, or don’t you think putting billons of tons of greenhouse gasses into the environment will have any affect?

Oh dear, and you accuse me of being illogical.
Read what I said very carefully.

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

No. I can see that the temperature would have stayed at 1883 levels if it were not for our influence. And it would have stayed at that level for the foreseeable future. It is clearly the earth’s natural temperature.

Are you sure? It doesn’t sound very logical to me. The world’s temperatures are influenced by world events, of which we are the current one, or don’t you think putting billons of tons of greenhouse gasses into the environment will have any affect?

Oh dear, and you accuse me of being illogical.
Read what I said very carefully.

morrie, no matter what way you look at what you said, it is illogical. Get over it!

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

Are you sure? It doesn’t sound very logical to me. The world’s temperatures are influenced by world events, of which we are the current one, or don’t you think putting billons of tons of greenhouse gasses into the environment will have any affect?

Oh dear, and you accuse me of being illogical.
Read what I said very carefully.

morrie, no matter what way you look at what you said, it is illogical. Get over it!

Oh FFS. I was agreeing with you, you idiot.

morrie said:

Oh FFS. I was agreeing with you, you idiot.

chortle

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Oh dear, and you accuse me of being illogical.
Read what I said very carefully.

morrie, no matter what way you look at what you said, it is illogical. Get over it!

Oh FFS. I was agreeing with you, you idiot.

No you were not, you made up some illogical argument not based on fact, but your assumptions. The reasons for climate change are considerably more complex than the oversimplification you propose.

Aren’t the global warming skeptics, skeptical not out of any scientific basis but because doing something about it costs them money and they’ll be dead before the ramifications of a warming Earth is felt worldwide

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

Not me, the IPCC.
IPCC (11 November 2013): D. Understanding the Climate System and its Recent Changes, in: Summary for Policymakers (finalized version), in: IPCC AR5 WG1 2013, p. 13

As you obviously have all the information at your finger tips, perhaps you might like to share?

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is “extremely likely” that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951 and 2010. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as indicating a probability of 95 to 100%, based on an expert assessment of all the available evidence.

Conversely, it is logical to conclude that without human intervention, it is extremely likely that there would have been no global warming and the temperature would have stayed essentially unchanged. However unlikely that might be in the overall scheme of things.

If you are going to create a straw man you might at least provide it with a little reinforcement so it doesn’t collapse in front of you.

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

PermeateFree said:

As you obviously have all the information at your finger tips, perhaps you might like to share?

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is “extremely likely” that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951 and 2010. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as indicating a probability of 95 to 100%, based on an expert assessment of all the available evidence.

Conversely, it is logical to conclude that without human intervention, it is extremely likely that there would have been no global warming and the temperature would have stayed essentially unchanged. However unlikely that might be in the overall scheme of things.

If you are going to create a straw man you might at least provide it with a little reinforcement so it doesn’t collapse in front of you.

Hardly a straw man. It is an obvious corollary.

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), it is “extremely likely” that human influence was the dominant cause of global warming between 1951 and 2010. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as indicating a probability of 95 to 100%, based on an expert assessment of all the available evidence.

Conversely, it is logical to conclude that without human intervention, it is extremely likely that there would have been no global warming and the temperature would have stayed essentially unchanged. However unlikely that might be in the overall scheme of things.

If you are going to create a straw man you might at least provide it with a little reinforcement so it doesn’t collapse in front of you.

Hardly a straw man. It is an obvious corollary.

You can’t be serious, but the humour escapes me I’m afraid.

Just in case you are serious, are you aware that “dominant” and “sole” have two very different meanings?

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

If you are going to create a straw man you might at least provide it with a little reinforcement so it doesn’t collapse in front of you.

Hardly a straw man. It is an obvious corollary.

You can’t be serious, but the humour escapes me I’m afraid.

Just in case you are serious, are you aware that “dominant” and “sole” have two very different meanings?

Which definition of dominant would you like to chose?

The_observer said:

Brian Schmidt

quote -

“the evidence from the warming of the oceans, I think in the >>next ten years<< is going to become pretty convincing so that most of the reasonable sceptics are going to drop out”.

Considering there’s been no atmospheric warming for over 17 years according to RSS satellite data, http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1990/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

I wonder if Brian Schmidt’s expectation of extreme ocean warming is based on model forecasts ?

.

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

Hardly a straw man. It is an obvious corollary.

You can’t be serious, but the humour escapes me I’m afraid.

Just in case you are serious, are you aware that “dominant” and “sole” have two very different meanings?

Which definition of dominant would you like to chose?

The only one that makes sense; i.e. the most influential.

What definition would you choose?

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

You can’t be serious, but the humour escapes me I’m afraid.

Just in case you are serious, are you aware that “dominant” and “sole” have two very different meanings?

Which definition of dominant would you like to chose?

The only one that makes sense; i.e. the most influential.

What definition would you choose?

At least you provide a decent argument.
Lets take that definition then.

What proportion of the warming would you say could be attributed (at 95% confidence) to greenhouse gases on the basis of the statement?

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

Which definition of dominant would you like to chose?

The only one that makes sense; i.e. the most influential.

What definition would you choose?

At least you provide a decent argument.
Lets take that definition then.

What proportion of the warming would you say could be attributed (at 95% confidence) to greenhouse gases on the basis of the statement?

I can’t see that the statement specifies a proportion.

Do you think it does?

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

Which definition of dominant would you like to chose?

The only one that makes sense; i.e. the most influential.

What definition would you choose?

At least you provide a decent argument.
Lets take that definition then.

What proportion of the warming would you say could be attributed (at 95% confidence) to greenhouse gases on the basis of the statement?

Smiles. :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

The only one that makes sense; i.e. the most influential.

What definition would you choose?

At least you provide a decent argument.
Lets take that definition then.

What proportion of the warming would you say could be attributed (at 95% confidence) to greenhouse gases on the basis of the statement?

I can’t see that the statement specifies a proportion.

Do you think it does?

LOL.
Gimme another batch of nails.

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

At least you provide a decent argument.
Lets take that definition then.

What proportion of the warming would you say could be attributed (at 95% confidence) to greenhouse gases on the basis of the statement?

I can’t see that the statement specifies a proportion.

Do you think it does?

LOL.
Gimme another batch of nails.

What does that mean.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here.

I’ll give you some numbers. You tell me which you think are possibly correct and which ones are impossible.

The proportion of temperature increase due to greenhouse gases is:

30%
49%
50.1%
70%
90%

of the total observed increase.

morrie said:

I’ll give you some numbers. You tell me which you think are possibly correct and which ones are impossible.

The proportion of temperature increase due to greenhouse gases is:

30%
49%
50.1%
70%
90%

of the total observed increase.

you left out the 97% figure :)

The_observer said:

morrie said:

I’ll give you some numbers. You tell me which you think are possibly correct and which ones are impossible.

The proportion of temperature increase due to greenhouse gases is:

30%
49%
50.1%
70%
90%

of the total observed increase.

you left out the 97% figure :)

You’re really not a good observer are you

morrie said:

I’ll give you some numbers. You tell me which you think are possibly correct and which ones are impossible.

The proportion of temperature increase due to greenhouse gases is:

30%
49%
50.1%
70%
90%

of the total observed increase.

How would I know? I’m not a climate scientist.

Could you just tell us what your point is please. Otherwise I’m going to assume you are just trying to be a smart-arse and let it drop.

The_observer said:

The_observer said:

Brian Schmidt

quote -

“the evidence from the warming of the oceans, I think in the >>next ten years<< is going to become pretty convincing so that most of the reasonable sceptics are going to drop out”.

Considering there’s been no atmospheric warming for over 17 years according to RSS satellite data, http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1990/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

I wonder if Brian Schmidt’s expectation of extreme ocean warming is based on model forecasts ?

.

I think the Observer should read a little more widely.

>>Claims that the ocean has been cooling are correct. Claims that global warming has stopped are not. It is an illogical position: the climate is subject to a lot of natural variability, so the premise that changes should be ‘monotonic’ – temperatures rising in straight lines – ignores the fact that nature doesn’t work like that. This is why scientists normally discuss trends – 30 years or more – so that short term fluctuations can be seen as part of a greater pattern. (Other well-known cyclic phenomena like El Nino and La Nina play a part in these complex interactions).

Looking at the trend in ocean heat, this is what we find:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

I’ll give you some numbers. You tell me which you think are possibly correct and which ones are impossible.

The proportion of temperature increase due to greenhouse gases is:

30%
49%
50.1%
70%
90%

of the total observed increase.

How would I know? I’m not a climate scientist.

Could you just tell us what your point is please. Otherwise I’m going to assume you are just trying to be a smart-arse and let it drop.

The statement was provided by climate scientists as a guide to the lay person. It appears to have been rather unsuccessful in conveying anything meaningful it seems.

PermeateFree said:

Looking at the trend in ocean heat, this is what we find:

your graph, predominantly constructed prior to ARGO, is not worth considering as the data its based on is of such a poor standard.

In any case, the warming of the deep oceans over the last 50 years is described in terms of gazillions of joules (which sounds impressive) rather than what was actually measured…hundredths of a degree (not so impressive). The resulting average planetary energy imbalance, if it really exists, is only 1 part in 1,000.

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

I’ll give you some numbers. You tell me which you think are possibly correct and which ones are impossible.

The proportion of temperature increase due to greenhouse gases is:

30%
49%
50.1%
70%
90%

of the total observed increase.

How would I know? I’m not a climate scientist.

Could you just tell us what your point is please. Otherwise I’m going to assume you are just trying to be a smart-arse and let it drop.

The statement was provided by climate scientists as a guide to the lay person. It appears to have been rather unsuccessful in conveying anything meaningful it seems.

I sympathize with The Rev when trying to discuss anything with you morrie. You dish out information like it was on starvation rations, not enough to answer a question, or to rationalise a statement, but just enough to keep the debate alive. One can only gather that you either know nothing of what you are discussing, or waiting for the other person to make a minor mistake based on a misunderstanding regarding your lack of information, just so you can claim you were right all along. I think your moral sensibilities have taken a dive morrie making you less relevant daily.

PermeateFree said:

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

How would I know? I’m not a climate scientist.

Could you just tell us what your point is please. Otherwise I’m going to assume you are just trying to be a smart-arse and let it drop.

The statement was provided by climate scientists as a guide to the lay person. It appears to have been rather unsuccessful in conveying anything meaningful it seems.

I sympathize with The Rev when trying to discuss anything with you morrie. You dish out information like it was on starvation rations, not enough to answer a question, or to rationalise a statement, but just enough to keep the debate alive. One can only gather that you either know nothing of what you are discussing, or waiting for the other person to make a minor mistake based on a misunderstanding regarding your lack of information, just so you can claim you were right all along. I think your moral sensibilities have taken a dive morrie making you less relevant daily.

+1

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Looking at the trend in ocean heat, this is what we find:

your graph, predominantly constructed prior to ARGO, is not worth considering as the data its based on is of such a poor standard.

In any case, the warming of the deep oceans over the last 50 years is described in terms of gazillions of joules (which sounds impressive) rather than what was actually measured…hundredths of a degree (not so impressive). The resulting average planetary energy imbalance, if it really exists, is only 1 part in 1,000.

You’re really not a good observer are you

PermeateFree said:

I sympathize with The Rev when trying to discuss anything with you morrie. You dish out information like it was on starvation rations, not enough to answer a question, or to rationalise a statement, but just enough to keep the debate alive. One can only gather that you either know nothing of what you are discussing, or waiting for the other person to make a minor mistake based on a misunderstanding regarding your lack of information, just so you can claim you were right all along. I think your moral sensibilities have taken a dive morrie making you less relevant daily.

perhaps factfree you could recommend to morrie your style of discussion, such as your effort on LaNina El Nino

LOL

morrie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

morrie said:

I’ll give you some numbers. You tell me which you think are possibly correct and which ones are impossible.

The proportion of temperature increase due to greenhouse gases is:

30%
49%
50.1%
70%
90%

of the total observed increase.

How would I know? I’m not a climate scientist.

Could you just tell us what your point is please. Otherwise I’m going to assume you are just trying to be a smart-arse and let it drop.

The statement was provided by climate scientists as a guide to the lay person. It appears to have been rather unsuccessful in conveying anything meaningful it seems.

What do you mean?

If they had given a figure to 2 or 3 significant figures you would have poured scorn on it (quite rightly). But you also pour scorn on it when they do not give a precise figure for the proportion, so it seems you are just out to pick holes with no real basis.

It says that there is a high probability that GHG emissions are the dominant cause of temperature increase. That is a meaningful statement. The meaning is that our confidence that GHG emissions are not going to cause big problems in the future is nowhere near the level required to allow us to continue emissions with no attempt to reduce them.

How is that not a meaningful statement?

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Looking at the trend in ocean heat, this is what we find:

your graph, predominantly constructed prior to ARGO, is not worth considering as the data its based on is of such a poor standard.

In any case, the warming of the deep oceans over the last 50 years is described in terms of gazillions of joules (which sounds impressive) rather than what was actually measured…hundredths of a degree (not so impressive). The resulting average planetary energy imbalance, if it really exists, is only 1 part in 1,000.

Regardless of how you try to distort Observer, we are talking long-term trends, which considering the size of the oceans compared to the land, temperature changes are obviously going to be slower. That is also discussed in the article. The climate is complex Observer and is not based on single short-term events as you would have us believe.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Looking at the trend in ocean heat, this is what we find:

your graph, predominantly constructed prior to ARGO, is not worth considering as the data its based on is of such a poor standard.

In any case, the warming of the deep oceans over the last 50 years is described in terms of gazillions of joules (which sounds impressive) rather than what was actually measured…hundredths of a degree (not so impressive). The resulting average planetary energy imbalance, if it really exists, is only 1 part in 1,000.

Regardless of how you try to distort Observer, we are talking long-term trends, which considering the size of the oceans compared to the land, temperature changes are obviously going to be slower. That is also discussed in the article. The climate is complex Observer and is not based on single short-term events as you would have us believe.

+1

The Rev Dodgson said:

It says that there is a high probability that GHG emissions are the dominant cause of temperature increase.

That statement is totally reliant on their assumption that climate sensitivity is high.

The data does not back up their assumption.

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Looking at the trend in ocean heat, this is what we find:

your graph, predominantly constructed prior to ARGO, is not worth considering as the data its based on is of such a poor standard.

In any case, the warming of the deep oceans over the last 50 years is described in terms of gazillions of joules (which sounds impressive) rather than what was actually measured…hundredths of a degree (not so impressive). The resulting average planetary energy imbalance, if it really exists, is only 1 part in 1,000.

Regardless of how you try to distort Observer, we are talking long-term trends, which considering the size of the oceans compared to the land, temperature changes are obviously going to be slower. That is also discussed in the article. The climate is complex Observer and is not based on single short-term events as you would have us believe.

I never “distort”, I simply put up the facts.

You on the other hand continually exaggerate & make up excuses

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

I sympathize with The Rev when trying to discuss anything with you morrie. You dish out information like it was on starvation rations, not enough to answer a question, or to rationalise a statement, but just enough to keep the debate alive. One can only gather that you either know nothing of what you are discussing, or waiting for the other person to make a minor mistake based on a misunderstanding regarding your lack of information, just so you can claim you were right all along. I think your moral sensibilities have taken a dive morrie making you less relevant daily.

perhaps factfree you could recommend to morrie your style of discussion, such as your effort on LaNina El Nino

LOL

Why should I be concerned that I made an error to which I admitted. The real problem Observer you make intentional errors, better known as lies and misinformation on every post you make.

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

your graph, predominantly constructed prior to ARGO, is not worth considering as the data its based on is of such a poor standard.

In any case, the warming of the deep oceans over the last 50 years is described in terms of gazillions of joules (which sounds impressive) rather than what was actually measured…hundredths of a degree (not so impressive). The resulting average planetary energy imbalance, if it really exists, is only 1 part in 1,000.

Regardless of how you try to distort Observer, we are talking long-term trends, which considering the size of the oceans compared to the land, temperature changes are obviously going to be slower. That is also discussed in the article. The climate is complex Observer and is not based on single short-term events as you would have us believe.

I never “distort”, I simply put up the facts.

You on the other hand continually exaggerate & make up excuses

Facts are only relevant when considered with other related facts, something you seem incapable of doing.

The_observer said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

It says that there is a high probability that GHG emissions are the dominant cause of temperature increase.

That statement is totally reliant on their assumption that climate sensitivity is high.

The data does not back up their assumption.

Your making an assumption aren’t you

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

I sympathize with The Rev when trying to discuss anything with you morrie. You dish out information like it was on starvation rations, not enough to answer a question, or to rationalise a statement, but just enough to keep the debate alive. One can only gather that you either know nothing of what you are discussing, or waiting for the other person to make a minor mistake based on a misunderstanding regarding your lack of information, just so you can claim you were right all along. I think your moral sensibilities have taken a dive morrie making you less relevant daily.

perhaps factfree you could recommend to morrie your style of discussion, such as your effort on LaNina El Nino

LOL

Why should I be concerned that I made an error to which I admitted.

No, you were rude & arrogant as usual, especially to me, (no apology you grub) & every one else who attempted to tell you ,you were wrong.

And you only half admitted you were wrong & still argued even then you weren’t convinced you were wrong.

& I do not lie you grubby fuckwit

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

perhaps factfree you could recommend to morrie your style of discussion, such as your effort on LaNina El Nino

LOL

Why should I be concerned that I made an error to which I admitted.

No, you were rude & arrogant as usual, especially to me, (no apology you grub) & every one else who attempted to tell you ,you were wrong.

And you only half admitted you were wrong & still argued even then you weren’t convinced you were wrong.

& I do not lie you grubby fuckwit

Your really rude aren’t you observer

cant you observe yourself getting all emotional

take some medication and go and have a rest

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

perhaps factfree you could recommend to morrie your style of discussion, such as your effort on LaNina El Nino

LOL

Why should I be concerned that I made an error to which I admitted.

No, you were rude & arrogant as usual, especially to me, (no apology you grub) & every one else who attempted to tell you ,you were wrong.

And you only half admitted you were wrong & still argued even then you weren’t convinced you were wrong.

& I do not lie you grubby fuckwit

You are very amusing Observer. You carry on as the aggrieved person, yet show exactly the same faults that you accuse me. I’m afraid there is no hope for you Observer, you are a lost cause.

:)

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

Why should I be concerned that I made an error to which I admitted.

No, you were rude & arrogant as usual, especially to me, (no apology you grub) & every one else who attempted to tell you ,you were wrong.

And you only half admitted you were wrong & still argued even then you weren’t convinced you were wrong.

& I do not lie you grubby fuckwit

You are very amusing Observer. You carry on as the aggrieved person, yet show exactly the same faults that you accuse me. I’m afraid there is no hope for you Observer, you are a lost cause.

:)

Maybe the observer is a school teacher?

CrazyNeutrino said:

PermeateFree said:

The_observer said:

No, you were rude & arrogant as usual, especially to me, (no apology you grub) & every one else who attempted to tell you ,you were wrong.

And you only half admitted you were wrong & still argued even then you weren’t convinced you were wrong.

& I do not lie you grubby fuckwit

You are very amusing Observer. You carry on as the aggrieved person, yet show exactly the same faults that you accuse me. I’m afraid there is no hope for you Observer, you are a lost cause.

:)

Maybe the observer is a school teacher?

Let us hope he is just a misguided student.