The Global Warming Plateau

[BubberMiley]

Nope. Sea ice has been added. You're denying reality.

Nobody said it hasn't. Yuo're denying reality by not looking at that rise in the context of an overall devastating decline.

[waldo]

Secondly, he's engaing himself in semantics in a lame attempt to downplay the warming plateau that now spans 15 years. From what I've read, virtually every computer model failed to predict this plateau - and almost without fail - every computer prediction grossly exceeded what has been observed. One would think that with over 100 models in action - at least some of them would have predicted the plateau - or even maybe a cooling - if only through random chance by using different variables. But no - they have all been alarmist in nature. Could this be an example of built-in bias? I think the results speak for themself.

again... there is no GLOBAL warming plateau. Global warming continues and has increased/accelerated. Your denial penchant to focus on global surface air temperature, on atmospheric warming only, ignores ocean warming... ocean warming, where more than 90% of warming is absorbed in heating the world's oceans. The rate of surface air temperature has slowed; however, surface air temperature continues to rise. As for models, model based studies have predicted this phenomenon in relation to phases of the IPO (Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation - the mean state of the north and south Pacific Ocean); i.e., global surface temperature warming accelerating in relation to a positive IPO phase versus ocean warming acceleration associated with a negative phase of the IPO.

[waldo]

Nobody said it hasn't. Yuo're denying reality by not looking at that rise in the context of an overall devastating decline.

deniers deny/ignore the declining Arctic sea ice trend in favour of a misguided/fallacious over-emphasis on Antarctica. Assorted past MLW threads have detailed why Antarctic sea ice (versus ice-sheet) conditions can be attributed to global warming... another facet deniers deny/ignore.

[Keepitsimple]

Here's a fairly well-balanced article from this past June that's probably worth a read.On the one hand, it rightly acknowledges the zig-zag pattern of plateaus and rises and how all the "extra heat" must be stored somewhere.......but it also acknowledges how many gaps and unknowns still exist in Climate Science - including where that extra heat might be going.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=0

[waldo]

Here's a fairly well-balanced article from this past June that's probably worth a read.On the one hand, it rightly acknowledges the zig-zag pattern of plateaus and rises and how all the "extra heat" must be stored somewhere.......but it also acknowledges how many gaps and unknowns still exist in Climate Science - including where that extra heat might be going.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=0

well balanced??? Says the guy, you... who just wrote a directly preceding post decrying alarmism and built-in-bias, while you denied/ignored ocean heating and purposely focused ONLY on atmospheric surface temperature warming

[scribblet]

All is good, Why the new view? Because the data show that global warming actually has paused since 1998. You would be forgiven for not knowing this, as in the last fifteen years climate alarmism has heated up. Thanks to multiple school-imposed viewings of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, an entire generation has been brainwashed into believing that unless we stop taking long showers and driving anything but a hybrid, we’re going to create a global Sahara.

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2013/09/16/cool-news-on-the-climate-front/

No need for alarmism

http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1226523/new-science-report-debunks-climate-scare

UN has hidden research that shows that nature, not humanity, controls the climate

OTTAWA, Sept. 17, 2013 /CNW/ - "As the science promoted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) falls into disrepute, reporters face a difficult decision," said Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). "Should they cover IPCC reports, the next of which will be issued on September 27th, as if there were no other reputable points of view? Or should they also seek out climate experts who disagree with the UN's view that we will soon face a human-induced climate crisis?

"With today's release of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (CCR-II - seehttp://climatechangereconsidered.org/, a 1,200 page report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), it is now much easier for media to adopt the second more balanced approached," continued Harris. "Co-authored and co-edited by Dr. Craig Idso, Professor Robert Carter, and Professor S. Fred Singer who worked with a team of 44 other climate experts, this document cites more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers to show that the IPCC has ignored or misinterpreted much of the research that challenges the need for carbon dioxide (CO2) controls. In other words, the NIPCC report demonstrates that the science being relied upon by governments to create multi-billion dollar policies is almost certainly wrong."

Professor Carter, former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University, Australia, explained, "NIPCC's CCR-II report uses layman's language to present solid evidence that today's climate changes are well within the bounds of natural variability. Real world observations tell us that the IPCC's speculative computer models do not work, ice is not melting at an enhanced rate, sea-level rise is not accelerating, the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is not increasing, and dangerous global warming is not occurring."

CCR-II Lead Author for the extreme weather chapter, Dr. Madhav Khandekar, agrees, "When the earth was generally cooling between 1945 and 1977, there were as many extreme weather events as there are now, but climate scientists did not attribute this to human activity. The perceived link between global warming and extreme weather is primarily due to greater media attention on violent weather today than in past decades. Earth's climate is robust and is not being destabilized by human-added CO2."

We should be thankful that our gov’t didn’t buy into ponzi schemes committing Canada to tossing billions down the drain. Of course McGuinty's 'green energy' has already scammed Ontario into near bankruptcy.

[waldo]

All is good, Why the new view? Because the data show that global warming actually has paused since 1998.

again, there has been NO global warming pause!

new view? I presume this is the standard denier talking point that questions any discussion of ocean warming... as stated previously earlier in this thread, this aspect, this area of study/emphasis on energy balance/ocean warming is NOTHING NEW.

[waldo]

No need for alarmism

Of course McGuinty's 'green energy' has already scammed Ontario into near bankruptcy.

How alarmist of you! Care to support your claim of Ontario 'green energy' scamming Ontario into near bankruptcy?

[waldo]

UN has hidden research that shows that nature, not humanity, controls the climate

oh my! The much debunked Heartland Institute "NIPCC" report... that has no credibility - none, zilch, nada! It's always quite telling to see a most naive MLW member pompously throw down something 'she' knows absolutely nothing about!

of course, in preparation for the upcoming IPCC release, the denialsphere has been in ramp-up mode in recent weeks.

Heartland Institute and its NIPCC report fail the credibility test

[Michael Hardner]

Professor Carter, former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University, Australia, explained, "NIPCC's CCR-II report uses layman's language to present solid evidence that today's climate changes are well within the bounds of natural variability. Real world observations tell us that the IPCC's speculative computer models do not work, ice is not melting at an enhanced rate, sea-level rise is not accelerating, the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events is not increasing, and dangerous global warming is not occurring."

What a whitewash. These people really shouldn't be given a soapbox to peddle this snake oil.

[BubberMiley]

What a whitewash. These people really shouldn't be given a soapbox to peddle this snake oil.

You're the "facilitator" of the soapbox in these parts.

[Shady]

What a whitewash. These people really shouldn't be given a soapbox to peddle this snake oil.

Is that what free speech is called these days? A soapbox, that should be taken away?

Edited September 19, 2013 by Shady

[TimG]

What a whitewash. These people really shouldn't be given a soapbox to peddle this snake oil.

Why is the opinion of the IPCC any less of a whitewash designed to support its political objectives? Let me guess - you take the position that the IPCC is not biased because it says it is not biased? Well the guys at the the NIPCC claim they are not biased as well. Why should your opinion on who is "speaking truth to pwer" and who is "whitewashing" determine who is allowed to be speak? Did someone appoint you as dictator of the world and sole arbiter of truth?

That would be ironic because the new IPCC report will actually concede that the NIPCC has been right (at least more right than the original IPCC reports) on many issues. The IPCC will, of course, spin the concessions in ways to avoid undermining their credibility but the concessions will be there. This does not mean that the NIPCC is right about everything - just that they a deserve to be heard.

In the public debate skeptics have largely won (Kyoto 2 is dead, carbon regulations will be token measures, emphasis will be placed on adaption and R&D). This is not because people are fooled by crackpots but because the silent majority have decided that on balance skeptics have been presenting a more honest picture of the state of the science that the defenders of the "consensus"

Edited September 19, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

Is that what free speech is called these days? A soapbox, that should be taken away?

of course! What could be so wrong in plying snake oil denialism while wrapping it in your so-called "free speech" dispensation!

[waldo]

That would be ironic because the new IPCC report will actually concede that the NIPCC has been right (at least more right than the original IPCC reports) on many issues. The IPCC will, of course, spin the concessions in ways to avoid undermining their credibility but the concessions will be there.

the NIPCC consists quite literally of only a small handful of quacks and charlatans, most of whom have published nothing whatsoever... who do no research or have qualifications in a directly related fields.

since an assortment of sections of draft releases of the IPCC reports have been improperly leaked by denialists, you should have no problem in explicitly detailing the areas of "concession" you so boldly pronounce. Let's have you provide details/specifics PRIOR to the actual release of the official IPCC reports...... waiting, waiting, waiting..........

[waldo]

In the public debate skeptics have largely won (Kyoto 2 is dead, carbon regulations will be token measures, emphasis will be placed on adaption and R&D). This is not because people are fooled by crackpots but because the silent majority have decided that on balance skeptics have been presenting a more honest picture of the state of the science that the defenders of the "consensus"

heelarious! Nice to see your continual Adapt-R-Us only prattle on display! Your delusion knows no bounds... "balanced skeptics"!!! Of course, the real hilarity rests in your perpetual myopic parroting of denialist blogs - you actually believe your denialist blog haunts hold weight and significance in the real world!

[cybercoma]

Why climate change deniers have no credibility in one pie chart

Oh, but that's all a part of the system, right? Let's invoke Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed documentary here. Scientific journals don't want you to know the truth. Every last one of them has a political agenda that they're trying to shove down everyone's throats, as do the thousands of authors that penned those articles. Really, the research is finding tons of evidence that climate change is not occurring, but nobody writes about it because they can't get funding. There's absolutely no corporations with an agenda to deny climate change that would pay top dollar for that kind of research. Literally none. So, all the scientists just toe the line that gets them published. The secret cabal of scientific journal gatekeepers continue to craft the narrative in their favour to push a political agenda that will be disastrous to the economy and the wallets of honest-to-goodness hard-working people!

[cybercoma]

This goes to show that the science isn't settled at all.

Just take a glance at that pie chart of peer-reviewed academic articles on climate change and say that again.

[bleeding heart]

heelarious! Nice to see your continual Adapt-R-Us only prattle on display! Your delusion knows no bounds... "balanced skeptics"!!! Of course, the real hilarity rests in your perpetual myopic parroting of denialist blogs - you actually believe your denialist blog haunts hold weight and significance in the real world!

Also....anyone who claims to speak for a "silent majority" is by definition peddling disinformation.

Since they're "silent" we cannot claim what they think or don't think on the subject, not in the form of a declaration.

[bleeding heart]

Why climate change deniers have no credibility in one pie chart

Oh, but that's all a part of the system, right? Let's invoke Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed documentary here. Scientific journals don't want you to know the truth. Every last one of them has a political agenda that they're trying to shove down everyone's throats, as do the thousands of authors that penned those articles. Really, the research is finding tons of evidence that climate change is not occurring, but nobody writes about it because they can't get funding. There's absolutely no corporations with an agenda to deny climate change that would pay top dollar for that kind of research. Literally none. So, all the scientists just toe the line that gets them published. The secret cabal of scientific journal gatekeepers continue to craft the narrative in their favour to push a political agenda that will be disastrous to the economy and the wallets of honest-to-goodness hard-working people!

This is fundamentally the argument, yes.

[cybercoma]

Problem is that it's "peer" review. So if there is a systematic silencing of dissenting opinions, it's because the vast majority of scientists find problems with the work of dissenters. In other words, the argument that deniers aren't being given a voice is full admission that there's scientific consensus.

[Michael Hardner]

You're the "facilitator" of the soapbox in these parts.

Right, and there's no rule against posting demonstrably false information that doesn't fall under "trolling". We've had this debate here before.

[Michael Hardner]

Is that what free speech is called these days? A soapbox, that should be taken away?

Free speech is kind of like a soapbox. I don't think bad information should be banned, in most cases, but I wish people would stop perpetuating it. I have come to appreciate - moreover, to value - the conservative perspective, and I think that without conscientious criticism from that sphere we would be worse off.

But there's a difference between letting people speak, and pushing bad information. A tenet of free speech is that bad information will die on the vine, if a thinking public behaves as they're supposed to.

[Michael Hardner]

Why is the opinion of the IPCC any less of a whitewash designed to support its political objectives? Let me guess - you take the position that the IPCC is not biased because it says it is not biased? Well the guys at the the NIPCC claim they are not biased as well. Why should your opinion on who is "speaking truth to pwer" and who is "whitewashing" determine who is allowed to be speak? Did someone appoint you as dictator of the world and sole arbiter of truth?

That would be ironic because the new IPCC report will actually concede that the NIPCC has been right (at least more right than the original IPCC reports) on many issues. The IPCC will, of course, spin the concessions in ways to avoid undermining their credibility but the concessions will be there. This does not mean that the NIPCC is right about everything - just that they a deserve to be heard.

In the public debate skeptics have largely won (Kyoto 2 is dead, carbon regulations will be token measures, emphasis will be placed on adaption and R&D). This is not because people are fooled by crackpots but because the silent majority have decided that on balance skeptics have been presenting a more honest picture of the state of the science that the defenders of the "consensus"

Everyone has some bias and prejudice, but there's a difference between those who try to be objective, who strive for truth, and those who propagate bad information for other reasons. If the IPCC report "concedes" (your wording, not mine) doesn't that undercut the assumption that there's a secret agenda there ? Does the NIPCC "concede" that warming is actually happening ? It seems so, from the devious wording of their statement that denies "dangerous warming" is happening. The politics of that statement should be so obvious that it should be a red flag to those who decry the so-called politics of scientific organizations.

The "silent majority" isn't well served by information, to my mind, and organizations that perpetuate stupid ideas are part of that. In an age of information chaos, it's easy to bring the shadow of doubt to institutions, and that's what's happened here. I'm talking about discussion of the phenomenon of AGW only, as discussion of possible solutions can't happen until people understand the problem.

[Michael Hardner]

of course! What could be so wrong in plying snake oil denialism while wrapping it in your so-called "free speech" dispensation!

The public needs to understand the difference between someone who speaks freely, and someone who pretends to be an expert. We can't stop pretenders, but we can insist that our information institutions explain the debate more clearly.