There was no global warming hiatus.

a reply to: TheRedneck

If only there were a 4th data set...

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: drewlander


The only real solution is to immediately shut off all fossil fuel emissions.
I don't expect many people would do that, though. People have to eat, they have to heat their residences...

What would you expect the death toll from that to be?

That's a hard thing to quantify. I would suspect at least a billion to perish in a few years if such a thing were to happen.

We're really pretty screwed. Either a lot of people die in the short term, or a whole lot more people die in the long term.

e: Also, our - for lack of a better term - reverse-greenhouse gases currently depress the rate of warming; halting these (a lot are from coal) would lead to a rather quick spike in temperature.

The general hope is that some scifi tech saves us... I wouldn't bet my hat on it.

a reply to: Greven

Exactly my point.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Greven

Any comments on this paper?

THE POSITIVE IMPACT OF HUMAN CO2 EMISSIONS
ON THE SURVIVAL OF LIFE ON EARTH
BY PATRICK MOORE | JUNE 2016

fcpp.org...

a reply to: Greven

Gosh colour me surprised. Scientists found yet another "cool bias" and the temperature record has to be warmed up a little bit.

I am in shock!

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: D8Tee

What about that paper? Things like this?

There is no question that the climate has warmed during the past 300 years since the peak of the Little Ice Age. There is also no question that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and all else being equal, the emissions would result in some warming if CO2 rose to higher levels in the atmosphere.
...
After the most recent major glaciation peaked 18,000 years ago, CO2 levels began to rise in the atmosphere, reaching 260 ppm 10,000 years ago and 280 ppm prior to the Industrial Revolution when fossil fuels became dominant for energy production. The most plausible explanation for the majority of this rise is outgassing of CO2 from the oceans as they warmed with a warming climate.16 Since then, human emissions of CO2 have contributed to raising the level to about 400 ppm, a level perhaps not experienced during the past 10 million to 20 million years.
...
The global atmosphere today, at about 400 ppm CO2, contains approximately 850 Gt of carbon compared with the oceans, which contain approximately 38,000 Gt of carbon, most of which was initially absorbed as CO2 from the atmosphere. (See Figure 4) Therefore, the emission or absorption of 1 per cent of CO2 from or into the oceans would make a 45 per cent change to the CO2 level in the atmosphere at the present concentration of CO2
...
It is commonly believed that volcanic activity results in massive emissions of CO2 comparable to or greater than human-caused emissions. This is not the case.
...
In the absence of human-caused CO2 emissions and other environmental impacts, there is no reason to doubt that another major glaciation would have occurred, following the pattern that has been established for at least the past 800,000 years, as established by the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (EPICA),
...
‘It is worth thinking that what we are doing in creating all these carbon emissions, far from something frightful, is stopping the onset of a new ice age.

Most of this is pretty reasonable. There are a few things that are questionable:

Yet, there is no definitive scientific proof that CO2 is a major factor in influencing climate in the real world.

Except you know, physics... the paper literally just said there would be warming if CO2 increased.

Other things that aren't equal? An increase of CO2 falls off rapidly in how much it helps plants grow:

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2 levels increase from 340–1,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2 level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambient CO2 levels. For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to 1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels. For others such as tulips, and Easter lilies, no response has been observed.

It's not up for debate that (to a point) CO2 increase photosynthesis - it does. There are other natural constraints such as having water to do said photosynthesis. We're not really concerned with plants doing worse as a result of increased CO2, save for perhaps food crops.

There are a few other things, but it is late.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Greven

Exactly my point.

Sea ice area isn't really a wild guess, not compared to microwave sounding temperature derivations.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
a reply to: Greven

Gosh colour me surprised. Scientists found yet another "cool bias" and the temperature record has to be warmed up a little bit.

I am in shock!

Uh... what are you talking about?

This is global sea ice area (perhaps a silly measure, bit I digress) - 2016 has wildly diverged from norm.

Antarctic sea ice is at its lowest area ever for this time of the year, as is Arctic sea ice. At one point it's something like 10 std deviations away from mean. This is unprecedented.

a reply to: Greven

Are you calling arctic temperature and low sea ice climate change

uh uh - its all just weather. Climate is what happens over time and one year or 10 for that matter just doesn't cut it.

Its within the 1 in 1000 year norm. It happened in the 1930's

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: Greven

Most here don't want change and refuse to change so they will ignore evidence and ignore the changes in our weather because they don't care about the future "screw you jack I'm doing fine"...
As for the Op dire news isn't it.

a reply to: testingtesting

And most here don't know how to think and are ready to follow every alarmist headline as if reading from the tablets of Moses himself.

judithcurry.com...

Wake me when something happens that has never happened before.

Tired of Control Freaks

a reply to: testingtesting

Most don't think a carbon tax will solve anything.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: testingtesting

Most don't think a carbon tax will solve anything.

Or, the more popular and being pushed, carbon credit trading scam.

a reply to: Greven

Hey, you're good! Switching from oceanic temperature adjustments to sea ice area... and I fell for it! Maybe next page you can switch to polar bear population...

Now, care to talk about polar ice volume? Area isn't really the issue, and neither is sea ice alone.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: testingtesting
a reply to: Greven

Most here don't want change and refuse to change so they will ignore evidence and ignore the changes in our weather because they don't care about the future "screw you jack I'm doing fine"...
As for the Op dire news isn't it.

What would you like to see changed?

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: mbkennel
When the older data is corrected with knowledge of the bias or newer data adjusted to match the old record effectively

In the engineering world we call this "Making *Stuff* up" and it is considered unethical as hell... sad to say climatologists don't seem to have the same level of ethical values with their work.

I think that is very good terminology, simple and to the point.


Edit:

in other words, we have to SWAG it (Sophisticated Wild-Ass Guess). Yes, that's a 'scientific' term.

I just had to add that one to the list it was too good to pass up

a reply to: everyone

Notice what was missing in the study"

They calculated ocean temperature using different data sets and were able to wave a magic wand and make the Pause (that never was) disappear.

But did they re-calculate the global temperature with each data set and make global warming disappear?

Notice how they have sufficient data to now instantaneously "identify the footprint of Anthropogenic Warming" in weather events but somehow completely missed that if they looked at ocean temperatures just a little different, they could make the Pause (that never was) disappear.


Tired of Control freaks

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

These are the reasons why i stopped paying attention to them and their fear mongering calculations. That and the leaked emails in climate gate in which we can see them discussing about deleting certain data because it shows the opposite of global warming.


Also of course the whole tax scam but that goes hand in hand with what we saw in the climate gate emails. They have and are killing it. Every potential sliver of truth that might exist in their claims is even discredited by themselves with this behavior for many people.

But then they try and turn around and call anyone who does not agree with them lunatics and even dangerous. Funny that isn't it.

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: drewlander


The only real solution is to immediately shut off all fossil fuel emissions.
I don't expect many people would do that, though. People have to eat, they have to heat their residences...

What would you expect the death toll from that to be?

Headshot!

I expect about 2 billion or so myself.

originally posted by: WilliamtheResolute
a reply to: SaturnFX
The majority of those supporting the climate change narrative are the ones who take research money from the government.

Ahh yes, the global government.

I believe in climate change, just not man made climate change.

Its good to have beliefs I suppose. what is your credientials, guy on the internet?
I think I may side with the global consensus on the science with mountains of peer reviewed evidence verses...some dude on ATS parroting US right wing anti-science that doesn't even make sense.

Look, you types 20 years ago denied any climate change...now you are saying fine, its changing, but it isn't our fault.

I have learned to tune out the anti-science crowd for a couple decades now. But hey, check out all the sweet stars you get around here for having beliefs over scientific comprehension...
Just mix jesus and apple pie in there and you might be hired for Brietbart to compose some awesome feels and beliefs articles on earth science.

.....follow the money.

Indeed
Follow the corporate money buying off your hero politicians and talking heads denying science..

or not.

a reply to: SaturnFX

try this link - its a critique of the OP study by a climatologist

judithcurry.com...

She doesn' t think much of the OP study either so I am confident you will not listen to her well because what would a climatologist know

Tired of Control Freaks