Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[Tim Grindley]

It's simply not true that we don't know what caused the Holocene Optimum. I've already given you one of the causes (the Milankovitch cycles).

 

It is also simply not true that the rate of global warming from 1979 to 1998 (which was a El Nino year, so is the reason why it was hotter than normal) was greater than the rate of change since. It is definitely not true that temperatures have been stable since then.

 

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

 

Where is this stable period since 1998 you talk of?

 

Please, I implore you to do some reading on the subject before talking about things you clearly haven't researched. If you do that reading, you'll see what the current thinking of temperature rise by 2100 will be.

So you have never heard of the pause then?

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22315.epdf?referrer_access_token=hympehHIyVLDFKYScpDhZdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NuFtYPLl1PUnqxUYbpB1uVru_rIjRyseUxK8YNRXQS46Tpa21x-vwjLraHJV2WWDOd7rzP-5_uGJHWoKN87dtIDyBdNky75pFNm3b1kPsZxFgLQCm1UFW4NOEQe9y-d0LIIFM51eerv_KMOolbXA-_zYlLSGtwkRvxvaAL_iZ_ahmkqUVIQ9DKmzi7uZMfF0E_AB4nI0NGR9ysvX-gKcKiacdVJnGlupBJgpzyxunH5fNJrXpPbKMXCsMEWMZb5KQ%3D&tracking_referrer=www.spiegel.de

 

Took all of 30 seconds to find.

[ads36]

if there was a pause, it's well and truly over.

 

if there was a pause, for a short period, it's only because you're setting the start point at 1998, which was a truly exceptionally warm year. And there have been 8 warmer years since. And you can't pick one year as your reference when talking about climate. 1 year is not climate, that's weather.

 

if there was a pause, it only manifested in the temperature of the earths atmosphere. the earths oceans (where the vast majority of heat is 'stored') saw no such pause in warming.

 

the 'warming-pause' is a total myth, only visible through deliberate cherry-picking of the data. it's bad science - bordering on willful deceit...

Edited January 31, 2018 by ads36

[Robin-H]

So you have never heard of the pause then?

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature22315.epdf?referrer_access_token=hympehHIyVLDFKYScpDhZdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NuFtYPLl1PUnqxUYbpB1uVru_rIjRyseUxK8YNRXQS46Tpa21x-vwjLraHJV2WWDOd7rzP-5_uGJHWoKN87dtIDyBdNky75pFNm3b1kPsZxFgLQCm1UFW4NOEQe9y-d0LIIFM51eerv_KMOolbXA-_zYlLSGtwkRvxvaAL_iZ_ahmkqUVIQ9DKmzi7uZMfF0E_AB4nI0NGR9ysvX-gKcKiacdVJnGlupBJgpzyxunH5fNJrXpPbKMXCsMEWMZb5KQ%3D&tracking_referrer=www.spiegel.de

 

Took all of 30 seconds to find.

 

Yes I was well aware that for a time people thought there may have been a pause.

 

I am also well aware that when you properly analyse the data, and don't just cherry pick the El Nino year as your starting point, the so called pause disappears.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/04/global-warming-hasnt-paused-study-finds

 

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/global-warming-hiatus-didnt-happen-study-finds

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/06/the-great-myth-of-the-global-warming-pause/

 

https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-another-reason-the-global-warming-hiatus-never-actually-happened-arctic-temperature

 

https://phys.org/news/2017-11-added-arctic-global-didnt.html

 

Took all of 30 seconds to find.

[El Cid]

So you have never heard of the pause then?

 

Took all of 30 seconds to find.

 

Are one one of those people that think rising co2 should be matched by rising temperatures, year after year?

Many things affect our climate, you are picking a certain time period to back up your thinking, if I did that you would think it ridiculous.

[Tim Grindley]

if there was a pause, it's well and truly over.

 

if there was a pause, for a short period, it's only because you're setting the start point at 1998, which was a truly exceptionally warm year. And there have been 8 warmer years since. And you can't pick one year as your reference when talking about climate. 1 year is not climate, that's weather.

 

if there was a pause, it only manifested in the temperature of the earths atmosphere. the earths oceans (where the vast majority of heat is 'stored') saw no such pause in warming.

 

the 'warming-pause' is a total myth, only visible through deliberate cherry-picking of the data. it's bad science - bordering on willful deceit...

 

The hockey stick graph used 1998 as the launch pad for the alarm.

 

If you don't know that was the graph which has us all melting any day soon. The one that got the whole show serriously moving.

 

It cherry picked 1998 to show a massive rise. That is why it is OK to use it to show no further rise to speak of.

 

So, you have moved to the previous higher temperatures never existing to them not mattering to them being explainable. OK.

 

Humanity survided them. So did the polar bears.

 

Now let's look at the impact of a slight warming. That would be 3.4c over now by 2100. (that's 4.2 over a silly baseline - the 0.8c we have already had).

 

Can you specify a single aspect of that that will cost Sheffield council 10% of the money it spends on traffic lights to get over?

 

---------- Post added 03-02-2018 at 18:05 ----------

 

Are one one of those people that think rising co2 should be matched by rising temperatures, year after year?

Many things affect our climate, you are picking a certain time period to back up your thinking, if I did that you would think it ridiculous.

 

I think that a prediction of rising temperatures of 0.2c per decade due to rising CO2 should be looked at very skeptically when we have had more CO2 rise and almost no temperature rise.

 

I further ask what is so bad ablout a slightly warmer world?

[ads36]

Eh?

 

You're mixing up the hockey stick graph, and the non-existent pause in warming.

 

The H-S graph was presented in 1998. Which was, by coincidence, the warmest year on record at the time. Since then there have been 8 years even warmer. Remove any single year (including 1998 ) from the graph and the recent, dramatic, warming trend is still visible.

 

It's the exact opposite of cherry-picking.

 

Remove 1998 from the record and the (brief) warming pause disappears. That's classic cherry-picking.

 

Look at the records, it's completely wrong to say that there has been "almost no temperature rise"

 

By all means, question the science, but please listen to the answers.

Edited February 3, 2018 by ads36

[El Cid]

]I think that a prediction of rising temperatures of 0.2c per decade due to rising CO2 should be looked at very skeptically when we have had more CO2 rise and almost no temperature rise.

 

I further ask what is so bad about a slightly warmer world?

 

According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.

 

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

[Tim Grindley]

Eh?

 

You're mixing up the hockey stick graph, and the non-existent pause in warming.

 

The H-S graph was presented in 1998. Which was, by coincidence, the warmest year on record at the time. Since then there have been 8 years even warmer. Remove any single year (including 1998 ) from the graph and the recent, dramatic, warming trend is still visible.

 

It's the exact opposite of cherry-picking.

 

Remove 1998 from the record and the (brief) warming pause disappears. That's classic cherry-picking.

 

Look at the records, it's completely wrong to say that there has been "almost no temperature rise"

 

By all means, question the science, but please listen to the answers.

 

Has there been a 0.03c rise per decade or a 0.2c rise per decade??

 

That it has risen a little I am not challenging. That it has risen a very slight bit is the point.

 

There can be no cherry picking out of the 1998 number.

 

I am reading and taking on board your points. You are incapable of seeing the things that you don't like.

 

---------- Post added 04-02-2018 at 10:29 ----------

 

According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8° Celsius (1.4° Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.

 

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

 

So, you have moved to the previous higher temperatures never existing to them not mattering to them being explainable. OK.

 

Humanity survided them. So did the polar bears.

 

Now let's look at the impact of a slight warming. That would be 3.4c over now by 2100. (that's 4.2 over a silly baseline - the 0.8c we have already had).

 

Can you specify a single aspect of that that will cost Sheffield council 10% of the money it spends on traffic lights to get over?

 

Again.

Edited February 4, 2018 by Tim Grindley

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Has there been a 0.03c rise per decade or a 0.2c rise per decade?

Either. Climate Change devotees have been known to produce whatever figures best support their case.

[El Cid]

I am reading and taking on board your points. You are incapable of seeing the things that you don't like.

 

Does anyone change their view?

 

I could state that the intensity, frequency and duration of hurricanes, have all increased; but you would no doubt not accept that.

 

Does it matter to Sheffield if sea levels rise, it does if we get mass immigration from parts of this country and other countries that suffer flooding.