The Global Warming Plateau

[TimG]

So atmosphere temperatures (and surface temperatures?)...their warming has slowed or at least isn't very significant? But ocean warming continues to rise steadily. Also, ice caps and glaciers etc. continue to melt away?

What the *data* is saying is that surface and the oceans are warming at rates much slower than predicted by the climate models. This matters since the usefulness of computer models depends on their ability to predict the future and models that fail to predict the future cannot be used to make claims about the future.

For example, in aerospace, if one designed a computer model that predicted a plane design would fly but when the plane was built it crashed on take off due to inadequate lift then one would be crazy to use that computer model without extensive rework.

But the field of climate science is not populated by engineers who are held accountable for the real world consequences of the their models - it is populated by scientists who are beholden to their theories and simply assume that the data that said the plane crashed is wrong and look for ways to 'adjust' the data to show that the plane actually flew.

As for the arctic ice: we have seen some melting in the last 40 years but what we don't have is long term data that would tell us what is normal. We do have some data that suggests a similar melt occurred in the 30s. The fact that some scientists choose it ignore data that does not fit their preconceived notions does not make the contradictory data go away. It is just an example of how scientists selectively choose data that tells them the story they want to hear.

Note that the *antarctic* ice is hitting record highs - but alarmists don't mention this because it does not support their narrative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/

The increasing ice is especially perplexing since the water beneath the ice has warmed, not cooled.

“The overwhelming evidence is that the Southern Ocean is warming,” said Jinlun Zhang, a University of Washington scientist, studying Antarctic ice. “Why would sea ice be increasing? Although the rate of increase is small, it is a puzzle to scientists.”

Edited October 19, 2013 by TimG

[TimG]

So scientists have just discovered the existence of oceans? They couldn't have factored oceans into their models and predictions several years ago? Now all of a sudden, oceans are being used as the exuse as to why warming has plateaued? What tripe.

Pure propaganda - the climate models have always said that the majority of warming will be in the oceans. They only roll out this excuse because it allows them say 'hey look at the big numbers' and fool people who don't think very much about what is being said. What they don't show is the model predictions of ocean warming were also wrong. Edited October 19, 2013 by TimG

[GostHacked]

I will always take an opening to showcase your grand world-wide conspiracy themes...

"deliberate weather manipulation" => GostHacked principal cause of global warming

I have always taken the stance that the sun has more to do with it. However much of these new weather problems we are seeing can be accounted to deliberate weather modification. Specifically cloud seeding.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=cloud-seeding-china-snow

It should come as no surprise, then, that the Chinese government wanted to claim a little credit for the good weather fortune, and they have. Officials said their cloud-seeding program directly caused the snowstorm. Engineers blasted more than 400 cigarette-size sticks of silver iodide into the sky shortly before the storm, and a senior engineer told Reuters that it was "a procedure that made the snow a lot heavier."

https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/5891-China-s-geoengineering-plans-dismissed-as-fantasy-

Airplanes loaded with cloud-seeding chemicals swept across southwest China early last month in a bid to bring rain to the drought-parched region. Tens of thousands of rockets and battalions of cannons stood poised to ambush stray clouds that might pass unwittingly into view.

By mid March a light, sporadic drizzle over Yunnan province brought welcome relief to farmers and residents struggling into a fourth consecutive year of severe drought. Local newspapers heralded the rains as the province’s first successful large scale cloud-seeding operations of the year.

This was the latest episode in China’s attempts to control the weather.

The water-starved country already has the world’s largest weather engineering programmes, and these look set to grow. In February, China’s top economic planner, the National Development and Reform Commission, announced plans to step up cloud-seeding and other weather modification techniques to tackle drought and boost agriculture.

Cloud-seeding is the oldest and most common weather modification technology, and often a resort during drought. It involves injecting clouds with frozen carbon dioxide (dry ice) or silver iodide, using military aircraft, cannons or rockets, to speed up the production of rain.

The US is heavy into it as well. More than 40 countries have weather modification programs.

In the US, cloud-seeding is used to boost rainfall during spring planting, suppress hail, increase snowpack in the Rocky Mountains and divert and weaken hurricanes. Scientists working for the Abu Dhabi government claimed to have created more than 50 rainstorms in Al Ain in July and August of 2010, the peak of summer. Indonesia recently said it had used cloud-seeding to prevent further flooding in its inundated capital Jakarta. Iraq, Yemen, India and Mexico all have their own programmes.

“Worldwide more than 40 or 50 countries are doing cloud-seeding,” says Roelof Bruintjes one of the world's leading experts on weather modification at the US National Center for Atmospheric Research who has helped many countries design and improve weather modification programmes, including China.

Now if that does not blow your mind, wait till you take a look at the military weather control programs.

Edited October 19, 2013 by GostHacked

[waldo]

I have always taken the stance that the sun has more to do with it. However much of these new weather problems we are seeing can be accounted to deliberate weather modification.

Now if that does not blow your mind, wait till you take a look at the military weather control programs.

across an assortment of many MLW threads, the sun's irradiance, cosmic rays, cosmic rays-clouds, etc., have been shown to have little influence (if any at all) on recent warming. Your "stance" concerning the "sun having more to do with it", is a stance you're, apparently, unable/unwilling to project upon.

and, again, your weather modification/control is one of the grandest world-wide conspiracies out there... so grand it's being supported by, quite literally, thousands of scientists, scientific organizations/institutions, academia, world governments, etc. Very grand, indeed! Notwithstanding warming results would presume on some kind of conspiracy working relationship among the weather modifiers/controllers to allow localized weather mods to perpetuate a global impact! Very grand, indeed... definitely Alex Jones type infowars territory!

[waldo]

What the *data* is saying is that surface and the oceans are warming at rates much slower than predicted by the climate models.

As for the arctic ice: we have seen some melting in the last 40 years but what we don't have is long term data that would tell us what is normal. We do have some data that suggests a similar melt occurred in the 30s. The fact that some scientists choose it ignore data that does not fit their preconceived notions does not make the contradictory data go away. It is just an example of how scientists selectively choose data that tells them the story they want to hear.

Note that the *antarctic* ice is hitting record highs - but alarmists don't mention this because it does not support their narrative.

3, count em... 3 TimG "Look Squirrels"! Models, 30's Arctic data and the Antarctic! "Look Squirrels"!!!

wait a minute... I just thought you said the pre-satellite data for the Arctic was questionable crap! Apparently, this data is quite good enough to allow you to surmise a "similar melt occurred in the 30s"! Oh my... what kind of a selective, self-serving game are you playing here, hey TimG? And, again, you fail to provide an attribution for your presumed 30s warming... notwithstanding the attribution you won't provide for recent warming. TimG, the "no attribution guy"!

of course, you threw down this link from CrazyAuntJudy's place, with a resounding "ta da". What you didn't do, was actually inform on the source author of your link... another of your blogger guys - "blog science rules"! Your linked author isn't a scientist, hasn't published.... and most significant of all, within his/your linked article, he doesn't provide a single composite reconstruction to support all that "hand-waving" he does - you know, to support one of your "Look Squirrels"! Equally, of course, if you took the cycles to read a bit of the commentary, you'd see another blogger (specializing in the Arctic) take your guy to task... to the point where your guy actually states he's not contradicting the 2007/2012 record melts... that he's not presenting anything that challenges them. Apparently, your favoured blogger guy says, he's simply bringing forward "data... your squirrel" and that he's not making a personal assessment of that data... that's he's allowing others to make their own assessments! Blog Science Rules!!!

as for your Antarctic squirrel, there's been no lack of mentioning it here on MLW... how could there be... it's a favoured squirrel! Of course, it's also a most significant area of research/study that suggests the state of Antarctic land sheet and ice-sea is consistent with global warming. But this Antarctic squirrel of yours, of course, is your way to avoid actually addressing the current state of the Arctic. Look Squirrel!

[waldo]

What the *data* is saying is that surface and the oceans are warming at rates much slower than predicted by the climate models. This matters since the usefulness of computer models depends on their ability to predict the future and models that fail to predict the future cannot be used to make claims about the future.

squirrel buster: on an appropriate climate scale/timescales, models have performed well. If you presume to speak to model-to-observation comparisons in the context of shorter-term periods then, yes, natural variability influences will affect comparisons. From the recently released IPCC AR5:

[TimG]

Here is a good explanation about how the IPCC continues to 'hide the the decline' in order to mislead the public about the true state of the science.

http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/

http://climateaudit.org/2013/10/08/fixing-the-facts-2/

Of course, such arguments mean nothing to people who think the ends justify the means (i.e. what's wrong with lies and deception when you are on a mission to save the world?).

The fact that so called "scientific authorities" are allowed to get away with such deceptions is why these "scientific authorities" are worthy of nothing but contempt. Maybe they will turn out to be right but it does not mean much today since their antics means they can't be trusted and we can't really justify doing anything based on their claims.

Edited October 19, 2013 by TimG

[waldo]

Here is a good explanation about how the IPCC continues to 'hide the the decline' in order to mislead the public about the true state of the science.

Blog Science Rules! Of course, your absolute dishonesty shines through... McIntyre started and ran with a draft figure... a pre-release figure... one leaked by a dishonest denier... a figure that had a baseline error. But again, a draft version... not finalized.

So, of course, McIntyre gets extreme criticism over his antics... and the best he does is to offer up a back-handed acknowledgement to his own error... to his own hyper-exuberance (and conspiracy railing), by recognizing that yes, the figure in question actually was improperly base-lined! Again, a draft figure, from a leaked version... pre-release. Of course, McIntyre couldn't rest there! His minions wouldn't allow/accept that. No, he charged forward to suggest another graphic was missing from one draft version to another! Cause, like... just cause they're drafts, that doesn't give anyone the right to change them!

Since TimG is really, really, really into the Blog Science Rules: Why Curry, McIntyre, and Co. are Still Wrong about IPCC Climate Model Accuracy

[waldo]

The fact that so called "scientific authorities" are allowed to get away with such deceptions is why these "scientific authorities" are worthy of nothing but contempt. Maybe they will turn out to be right but it does not mean much today since their antics means they can't be trusted and we can't really justify doing anything based on their claims.

10+ months went by... the time between the original denier posting of the leaked draft graphic... and its correction (within another draft). Of course, the whole intent behind drafts, multiple iterative drafts, is to flush out errors, to look for consistency between reports, to update/improve upon each successive draft. Apparently, to deniers, it's a, as you say, "deception... one worthy of your contempt", for any kind of corrections/changes to be applied to early draft versions of reports.!

Edited October 19, 2013 by waldo

[bush_cheney2004]

Time for an old favorite....."Hide the Decline" :

[bush_cheney2004]

Even this Cal Berkeley professor calls BS on "hiding the decline" with "Mike's trick".

[Keepitsimple]

Haven't seen this Global Warming Forecasting site before but it might be worth tracking all these authoritative predictions - pretty scary stuff :

Link: http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/2015-climate-change-global-warming-2015.php

[Shady]

Warming to pause for possibly another 20 years!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

[On Guard for Thee]

 

Here is a good explanation about how the IPCC continues to 'hide the the decline' in order to mislead the public about the true state of the science.

http://climateaudit.org/2013/09/30/ipcc-disappears-the-discrepancy/

http://climateaudit.org/2013/10/08/fixing-the-facts-2/

Of course, such arguments mean nothing to people who think the ends justify the means (i.e. what's wrong with lies and deception when you are on a mission to save the world?).

The fact that so called "scientific authorities" are allowed to get away with such deceptions is why these "scientific authorities" are worthy of nothing but contempt. Maybe they will turn out to be right but it does not mean much today since their antics means they can't be trusted and we can't really justify doing anything based on their claims.

 

[On Guard for Thee]

Who are your "scientific authorities" Exxon Mobil I suppose. Perhaps you should move to the Maldives or the Marshall Islands to live and when the water rises above your head you can sputter some crap about how it's not really hapenning.

[TimG]

Who are your "scientific authorities" Exxon Mobil I suppose. Perhaps you should move to the Maldives or the Marshall Islands to live and when the water rises above your head you can sputter some crap about how it's not really hapenning.

The islands sinking myth a good example of the lies spread by so called "authorities" to scare a public who does not take the time to look at the facts. In the case of Maldives they exploit global warming fears as a way to extort money but they don't take it seriously because they are building hotels and airports like crazy. If they (or the investors) really believed the islands were at risk they would not be pouring billions into infrastructure.

From a scientific perspective coral atolls float on the surface of the sea so they will rise with the sea level. The main problem these atolls face are over population and local developments which disrupt the geology of the atolls. Climate change is just an excuse to deflect blame for the problems created by local governments.

As for my "authorities". I trust no one now. If I don't have the time to investigate myself I simply assume that any scientific claim made to justify a political position is a fiction created to justify the position.

Edited November 7, 2013 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

 

The islands sinking myth a good example of the lies spread by so called "authorities" to scare a public who does not take the time to look at the facts. In the case of Maldives they exploit global warming fears as a way to extort money but they don't take it seriously because they are building hotels and airports like crazy. If they (or the investors) really believed the islands were at risk they would not be pouring billions into infrastructure.

From a scientific perspective coral atolls float on the surface of the sea so they will rise with the sea level. The main problem these atolls face are over population and local developments which disrupt the geology of the atolls. Climate change is just an excuse to deflect blame for the problems created by local governments.

As for my "authorities". I trust no one now. If I don't have the time to investigate myself I simply assume that any scientific claim made to justify a political position is a fiction created to justify the position.

 

Attols float?

[On Guard for Thee]

 

What the *data* is saying is that surface and the oceans are warming at rates much slower than predicted by the climate models. This matters since the usefulness of computer models depends on their ability to predict the future and models that fail to predict the future cannot be used to make claims about the future.

For example, in aerospace, if one designed a computer model that predicted a plane design would fly but when the plane was built it crashed on take off due to inadequate lift then one would be crazy to use that computer model without extensive rework.

But the field of climate science is not populated by engineers who are held accountable for the real world consequences of the their models - it is populated by scientists who are beholden to their theories and simply assume that the data that said the plane crashed is wrong and look for ways to 'adjust' the data to show that the plane actually flew.

As for the arctic ice: we have seen some melting in the last 40 years but what we don't have is long term data that would tell us what is normal. We do have some data that suggests a similar melt occurred in the 30s. The fact that some scientists choose it ignore data that does not fit their preconceived notions does not make the contradictory data go away. It is just an example of how scientists selectively choose data that tells them the story they want to hear.

Note that the *antarctic* ice is hitting record highs - but alarmists don't mention this because it does not support their narrative.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2013/09/23/antarctic-sea-ice-hit-35-year-record-high-saturday/

 

The boeing 777 was completely designed by a cad system, and it didn't crash on take off.

[TimG]

Attols float?

http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/39427

The first and most important fact, discovered by none other than Charles Darwin, is that coral atolls essentially "float" on the surface of the sea.

When the sea rises, the atoll rises with it, and when the sea falls, they fall as well.

Atolls exist in a delicate balance between new sand and coral rubble being added from the reef, and sand and rubble being eroded by wind and wave back into the sea.

When the sea falls, more sand tumbles from the high part, and more of the atoll is exposed to wind erosion.

The atoll falls along with the sea level. When the sea level rises, wind erosion decreases. The coral grows up along with the sea level rise.

[TimG]

The boeing 777 was completely designed by a cad system, and it didn't crash on take off.

What is your point? These models were put through batteries of tests where they would be used to predict the outcome of an experiment and if real world results did not match the engineers would figure out why, fix it and run the experiment again.

Climate models cannot be put through this kind of testing because the time frames are too long. This means they do not have anything close to the credibility that the computer models used for aerospace have.

Edited November 7, 2013 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

 

http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/39427

 

Boats float, attolls do not. Erosion occurs I'll grant you that. It is occurring much faster now that sea levels are rising due to glacial as well as sea ice melt.The people living on those islands would I believe disagree with your idea that it's all a myth as they are getting into their boats, (that do float) to take them to higher ground.

[TimG]

It is occurring much faster now that sea levels are rising due to glacial as well as sea ice melt.The people living on those islands would I believe disagree with your idea that it's all a myth as they are getting into their boats, (that do float) to take them to higher ground.

You are in denial. The geology of atolls is well understood but it is inconvenient for people that want to create fake panic over global warming. As I said, many atolls are having problems but these problems are caused by over population and over development. They have absolutely nothing to do with sea level rise.

Here is some real data for you to deny: http://phys.org/news194769052.html

But two researchers who measured 27 islands where local sea levels have risen 4.8 inches (120 millimeters) - an average of 0.08 inch (2 millimeters) a year - over the past 60 years, found just four had diminished in size.

The reason: Coral islands respond to changes in weather patterns and climate, with coral debris eroded from encircling reefs pushed up onto the islands' coasts by winds and waves.

Edited November 7, 2013 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Here is a simple way to look at it. I don't know where you're from but for me when I was a kid we used to go shovel off a frozen pond in the winter to skate on. Now even on those sunny days in January the ice was solid and would last until the spring. The heat from the sun was mostly reflected. Now, let's say you took an axe and bashed a big hole in the ice. You might just find your skating rink gone sooner than it should be because now the water is absorbing much more of the sun's heat. that is hapenning at both poles, and that ice is bringing up the water level.

[TimG]

Here is a simple way to look at it...

Completely irrelevant to my point. The data says atolls are rising with the sea level. If you want to dispute that data then explain why you think it is wrong.

[On Guard for Thee]

 

Completely irrelevant to my point. The data says atolls are rising with the sea level. If you want to dispute that data then explain why you think it is wrong.

 

There is ample data that shows the rise of sea level. Where I live it could rise feet and it wouldn't make a lot of difference. If you live on an island that is only inches above high tide to begin with, it's critical. Environment Canada not long ago produced a map that showed signifigant reduction in arctic ice. When ice melts, sea levels rise, unless it's just the ice in your cocktail.