Separate studies suggest current "pause" in global warming likely the last

Sep 02, 2014 by Bob Yirka report
Separate studies suggest current “pause” in global warming likely the last
Observed and simulated change in global-mean surface temperature. Credit: Nature Climate Change (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2355

(Phys.org) —Two different research groups working independently have come to the same conclusion, the current pause we've experienced in global warming (since 1997) is very likely the last we're likely to see if current greenhouse gas emission trends continue. One team, with members from several research centers in Japan, has published their findings in the journal Nature Climate Change. The other, based at the University of New South Wales, in Australia, has published their findings in Geophysical Research Letters.

Most scientists agree that the current pause we are experiencing with global warming is likely due to the ocean serving as a massive heat sink (and a small amount of cooling due to ). Most also agree that the time is coming soon when the oceans will stop absorbing the , ending the pause we are experiencing and allowing to rise again.

The team in Japan has found, using climate records and models, that natural variations in temperature over the past thirty years have had less of an influence on the overall warmth of the planet than in the past, suggesting, that pauses such as we are now experiencing will have less and less of an impact going forward if the atmosphere continues to heat up. More specifically, their models show that during the 1980's natural atmospheric temperature variations accounted for roughly half of temperature changes that were seen. In the 1990's the percentage fell to just 38 percent and then to 27 percent after the turn of the century. Heading into the future, they predict, warming due to human activities will account for more and more of the changes in temperatures, leaving less variability due to natural causes such as the one that led to the pause we are now experiencing.

The team in Australia ran 31 environmental models and came to the conclusion that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate, the likelihood of another pause in global warming drops to near zero. Even worse, they suggest that the extra heat that has been pulled into the world's oceans is likely to be released causing a speed-up of global warming. Their models show that even if there is a major volcanic event of the magnitude of Krakatau, for example, the outcome remains the same, a constant increase in global temperatures, i.e. no hiatuses or pauses along the way.

Both groups suggest the catastrophic impact of in the not-too-distant future as seen in their dire predictions can be averted if we act now as a global community to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Explore further: Global warming 'pause' since 1998 reflects natural fluctuation, study concludes

More information: 1. Contribution of natural decadal variability to global warming acceleration and hiatus, Nature Climate Change (2014) DOI: 10.1038/nclimate2355

Abstract
Reasons for the apparent pause in the rise of global-mean surface air temperature (SAT) after the turn of the century has been a mystery, undermining confidence in climate projections. Recent climate model simulations indicate this warming hiatus originated from eastern equatorial Pacific cooling4 associated with strengthening of trade winds5. Using a climate model that overrides tropical wind stress anomalies with observations for 1958–2012, we show that decadal-mean anomalies of global SAT referenced to the period 1961–1990 are changed by 0.11, 0.13 and −0.11 °C in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, respectively, without variation in human-induced radiative forcing. They account for about 47%, 38% and 27% of the respective temperature change. The dominant wind stress variability consistent with this warming/cooling represents the deceleration/acceleration of the Pacific trade winds, which can be robustly reproduced by atmospheric model simulations forced by observed sea surface temperature excluding anthropogenic warming components. Results indicate that inherent decadal climate variability contributes considerably to the observed global-mean SAT time series, but that its influence on decadal-mean SAT has gradually decreased relative to the rising anthropogenic warming signal.

2. Maher, N., A. Sen Gupta, and M. H. England (2014), Drivers of decadal hiatus periods in the 20th and 21st centuries, Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, DOI: 10.1002/2014GL060527.

Abstract
The latest generation of climate model simulations are used to investigate the occurrence of hiatus periods in global surface air temperature in the past and under two future warming scenarios. Hiatus periods are identified in three categories: (i) those due to volcanic eruptions, (ii) those associated with negative phases of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO), and (iii) those affected by anthropogenically released aerosols in the mid-twentieth century. The likelihood of future hiatus periods is found to be sensitive to the rate of change of anthropogenic forcing. Under high rates of greenhouse gas emissions there is little chance of a hiatus decade occurring beyond 2030, even in the event of a large volcanic eruption. We further demonstrate that most nonvolcanic hiatuses across Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) models are associated with enhanced cooling in the equatorial Pacific linked to the transition to a negative IPO phase.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Dire outlook despite global warming 'pause': study

May 19, 2013

A global warming "pause" over the past decade may invalidate the harshest climate change predictions for the next 50 to 100 years, a study said Sunday—though levels remain in the danger zone.

Recommended for you

Study links changing winds to warming in Pacific

45 minutes ago

A new study released Monday found that warming temperatures in Pacific Ocean waters off the coast of North America over the past century closely followed natural changes in the wind, not increases in greenhouse ...

NASA image: Wildfires in Khabarovsk Krai, Russia

1 hour ago

Most of the fires captured in this image burn in Khabarovsk Krai, a territory occupying the coastline of the Sea of Okhotsk. Dozens of red hotspots, accompanied by plumes of smoke mark active fires. The smoke, ...

NASA sees Tropical Depression Polo winding down

4 hours ago

Infrared satellite imagery from NASA's Aqua satellite showed only a swirl of low-level clouds some deep clouds around Polo's weakening center on Sept. 22 as the storm weakened to a depression.

User comments : 66

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

axemaster
4.3 / 5 (35) Sep 02, 2014
their models show that during the 1980's natural atmospheric temperature variations accounted for roughly half of temperature changes that were seen. In the 1990's the percentage fell to just 38 percent and then to 27 percent after the turn of the century.

That's a very impressive result if true and certainly justifies their conclusion. The fact that two independent research groups came to the same result also lends a lot of weight.

In a sense, we've been incredibly unlucky to have this (thermal, not energetic) pause right now, as it happened right in our best response window. The nature of the whole situation tends to play on our worst planning fallacies and cognitive deficits.

Speaking of which, I sense victims of those very problems incoming now...
cantdrive85
1.8 / 5 (32) Sep 02, 2014
This "prediction" from the same scientists and models which failed to predict the current hiatus. Fail!
plaasjaapie
2 / 5 (23) Sep 02, 2014
Talking about the validity of scientific "consensus" is a little bizarre when NOT agreeing to the consensus means you stop seeing government funding for your research. What it is isn't consensus in any meaningful sense but 21st century Lysenkoism. :-/
Neanderthal_Genes
2.2 / 5 (25) Sep 02, 2014
Glad to see that climate science is advancing at such a pace. In a few years, with the aid of powerful computers, even past temperatures will be predictable. http://www.breitb...-Warming
Once past temperatures are known, then science will then tackle the even harder problem of predicting the future. So far this problem has appeared to be intractable.
JessicaH
2.2 / 5 (26) Sep 02, 2014
The only way they get their models to work is by adjusting them to reality or adjusting the data. I though part of validating science was making predictions using models and they actually turn out as you predict? Why are these guys immune from the same standards of other sciences? They do not understand climate science enough to make recommendations that could cost hundreds of trillions of dollars.
RWT
2.3 / 5 (27) Sep 02, 2014
I couldn't even read past the graph posted up top from one of the papers. If these are actual scientists, whom are completely objective, then why are they choosing to ignore the superior satellite temperature datasets (e.g. RSS) and instead use the majorly flawed ground based temperature data (e.g. HADCRUT)? I wonder what it's like to spend your entire life on this farce only to have the inevitable truth of your fraud and poor subjective science creeping ever closer as the Modern Grand Maximum of the sun comes to an end, hence, ending modern global warming.
PsycheOne
2.6 / 5 (23) Sep 02, 2014
"Most scientists agree that the current pause we are experiencing with global warming is likely due to the ocean serving as a massive heat sink..."

I'd like to see the statistics on the scientist head count. Got any?

Oh, and does "scientists" include nuclear physicists, for example? Not sure their opinion is relevant.

And that heat sink idea just came out recently. So evidently all scientists have reached a conclusion on that already. Based on what: the news report?

And since when does science take into account popular opinion, anyway? I thought you needed replicable results and verifiable predictions.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (23) Sep 02, 2014
And that heat sink idea just came out recently. So evidently all scientists have reached a conclusion on that already. Based on what: the news report?


It should not have 'come out recently', because umm, the ocean is a really big and obviously large heat sink and climate science would have known about it, had they known about anything at all.

Not every climate scientist agrees with the 'ocean ate my warming' excuse. The greater the number of excuses for the pause, the less chance of "consensus", one would think.

When they speak in terms of tenths of a degree per decade, one must question the accurancy claimed, particularly when its based on data with which they already had sex with.
julianpenrod
1.6 / 5 (20) Sep 02, 2014
To be fair, and frank, despite the derision from a supposed hiatus in warming, the hiatus means temperatures are roughly the same, ten degrees warmer than natural. They haven;t grown but are still out of line.
Interesting, too, that, now, it's being acknowledged that this supposed hiatus began in 1997. The exact same year when chemtrail non dissipating vapor lanes began appearing in huge numbers, up to a dozen or more, in the sky, again and again and again. Such an appearance of vast numbers of non dissipating vapor lines was never seen before, but chemtrail deniers refuse to touch that issue. They show random pictures over decades of two or maybe three lines, sometimes from air shows! 1997 is also the year the rapid fire of phenomena typically ascribed to climate change began!
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (20) Sep 02, 2014
Evidently, climate science knew oceans exist, but didn't know enough to estimate it's heat sinking potential,..... until after the global warming pause.... now all of a sudden they know how efficient and how long the ocean will absorb heat. Suspicious. Another thing that is suspicious is that climate science would even address a decade amount of trend at all.
julianpenrod
2.1 / 5 (18) Sep 02, 2014
Also, note the reference to heat being diverted to ocean bottoms. Recently, it was revealed that ocean floor beds are emitting methane and a mechanism, that is not generally accepted as happening, is that heat can release methane trapped in combination under the sea floor.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (20) Sep 02, 2014
While they are at it, perhaps they can explain how the US cooled since the 1930's, during which they led the world in GHG emissions.
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/
hemitite
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 02, 2014
What about my wonderful carbon skid mark...er, footprint? There is no true science of politics, but there are many examples of politics in sciences.
Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (17) Sep 02, 2014
While they are at it, perhaps they can explain how the US cooled since the 1930's, during which they led the world in GHG emissions.
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/


Note that the link is from 1999.
marcush
4.5 / 5 (16) Sep 02, 2014
Speaking of which, I sense victims of those very problems incoming now...


Wow, they sure did.
Water_Prophet
2.1 / 5 (13) Sep 02, 2014
@axemaster-
Where've you been?
For once I have to agree with you, once the pause is done, if other effects don't improve, it will get worse, the ocean is a poor buffer of temperature compared to polar and glacial ice.

The only hope I really have is the alternate or even complementary effect that, we are increasing solar, wind, ethanol, decreasing energy use, as is evident by looking at our skyline and light pollution.
Vietvet noticed that the skyline was still pretty bright in the PacNW, where, they use the Hoover damn and other "green" energy mainstay.

I am hoping the pause is caused by the latter, because if this is a false recovery caused by accelerating melting, things are going to be very unpleasant at the coasts.

And coastal property has dropped...
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (21) Sep 02, 2014
While they are at it, perhaps they can explain how the US cooled since the 1930's, during which they led the world in GHG emissions.
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/


Note that the link is from 1999.

You know, in an attempt to credit you AGW morons with an iota of intelligence, I would believe it was your strategy to frustrate us with your stupidity, but then that would actually require you to have a brain.
axemaster
3.9 / 5 (18) Sep 02, 2014
@axemaster-
Where've you been?

Busy. I'm working on launching a biomedical technology company and getting ready for classes to start again at MIT (tomorrow actually). So I haven't had much time to live in "the world".

To answer the rest of your post... honestly, I don't think we're going to stop global warming at this point. Things have gone too far, and we don't really have any time left to fix it. In my opinion, it's now coming down to a race - either we "tech-up" enough that we can survive a collapse of the biosphere, or we face a very real possibility that civilization doesn't make it to the end of the century.

My bet is on transferring consciousness to a non-biological medium as the solution, which is my main motivation for going into biomed. You can think of it as my scientifically-informed desperation move. Given history, it's clear that I can't wait for it to happen. I suppose that also plays into me not bothering with these forums anymore - they're all just talk.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (16) Sep 02, 2014
their models show that during the 1980's natural atmospheric temperature variations accounted for roughly half of temperature changes that were seen. In the 1990's the percentage fell to just 38 percent and then to 27 percent after the turn of the century.

That's a very impressive result if true and certainly justifies their conclusion. The fact that two independent research groups came to the same result also lends a lot of weight.

In a sense, we've been incredibly unlucky to have this (thermal, not energetic) pause right now, as it happened right in our best response window. The nature of the whole situation tends to play on our worst planning fallacies and cognitive deficits.


.............better classified as the new spin cycle.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (20) Sep 02, 2014
In my opinion, it's now coming down to a race - either we "tech-up" enough that we can survive a collapse of the biosphere, or we face a very real possibility that civilization doesn't make it to the end of the century.


Ridiculous. Such hysteria is scientifically unfounded.

My bet is on transferring consciousness to a non-biological medium as the solution, which is my main motivation for going into biomed.


Your unbalanced mental state is the direct result of AGW alarmism propaganda, swallowed whole.
howhot2
4.2 / 5 (17) Sep 02, 2014
From the article:
The team in Australia ran 31 environmental models and came to the conclusion that if greenhouse gas emissions continue at their current rate, the likelihood of another pause in global warming drops to near zero. Even worse, they suggest that the extra heat that has been pulled into the world's oceans is likely to be released causing a speed-up of global warming.
Wow, now that is incredibly bad. That is simply run-away global warming! Computer models can't predict what happens after that, except to recognize this is mass extinction of life as we know it from man made pollution and the fossil fuel industry.

Of course I see the deniers are nit-picking already, but when *all* arrows point north, you can predict with certainty that the next arrow will also point north. Each future generation has more and more going against it, including the moron gene that deniers seem to have. But that will die with mankind's extinction.


Vietvet
4.5 / 5 (17) Sep 02, 2014
@WaterP

"Vietvet noticed that the skyline was still pretty bright in the PacNW, where, they use the Hoover damn and other "green" energy mainstay".

You're confusing me with someone else and the Hoover Dam is a long, long way from the PacNW.
Whydening Gyre
4.1 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2014
My bet is on transferring consciousness to a non-biological medium as the solution...

It's already happened...
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (16) Sep 02, 2014
So, when is the 80 year pause the US is experiencing going to end.
Not to mention that this has happened when the US led the world in GHG emissions.
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/
howhot2
4.5 / 5 (15) Sep 02, 2014
@goreacle, there is so much you don't know about. And you prove it with each new post.
It's not 80 years, it's only 15. And the pause isn't really a pause, it's just slow acceleration in growth of temperature rise.

http://www.climat...perature

But of course there are 1000s of other indicators. Once this global temperature stair steps is crossed it full speed ahead for global human extinction! Your little dog too!

antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (16) Sep 02, 2014
Hey howhot, why don't you learn howtoread.
That to NASA's site clearly shows the US cooling since the 1930's.
Vietvet
4.8 / 5 (19) Sep 03, 2014
Hey howhot, why don't you learn howtoread.
That to NASA's site clearly shows the US cooling since the 1930's.


The report is from 1999, and clearly states the globe is warming. The U.S. is only 2% of the world.

sennekuyl
1.7 / 5 (6) Sep 03, 2014
While they are at it, perhaps they can explain how the US cooled since the 1930's, during which they led the world in GHG emissions.
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/

Updraft.
ViperSRT3g
4.2 / 5 (10) Sep 03, 2014
Busy. I'm working on launching a biomedical technology company and getting ready for classes to start again at MIT (tomorrow actually). So I haven't had much time to live in "the world".

To answer the rest of your post... honestly, I don't think we're going to stop global warming at this point. Things have gone too far, and we don't really have any time left to fix it. In my opinion, it's now coming down to a race - either we "tech-up" enough that we can survive a collapse of the biosphere, or we face a very real possibility that civilization doesn't make it to the end of the century.

My bet is on transferring consciousness to a non-biological medium as the solution, which is my main motivation for going into biomed. You can think of it as my scientifically-informed desperation move. Given history, it's clear that I can't wait for it to happen. I suppose that also plays into me not bothering with these forums anymore - they're all just talk

I applaud your action. Not many people seem to want to actually do anything about making the world a better place in the long run. Everything is always giving a ROI in less than 10 years, when the real problem is more like 50-70 years out.

I don't have the expertise in your field, but I am a big supporter of alternative power sources and the hydrogen economy. I still have hopes that it will take off sooner rather than later.
rockwolf1000
4.4 / 5 (14) Sep 03, 2014
Hey howhot, why don't you learn howtoread.
That to NASA's site clearly shows the US cooling since the 1930's.


Hey Ignoracle, why don't you learn howtowrite?

"Hey howhot, why don't you learn howtoread." Is a question and ALWAYS gets a question mark at the end and not a period.

"That to NASA's site clearly shows the US cooling since the 1930's." - Is an improper sentence and is demonstrative of your imbecilic fashion of thinking and communicating.

Why you choose to put your immense stupidity on public display on a daily basis is a complete mystery to me.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (14) Sep 03, 2014
Oh look, it's mummy's little rockturd. I can't believe she let it out of it's cesspool to stink up the place again.
howhot2
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 04, 2014
AL GORE.... NASA.... CLIMATE CHANGE... GLOBAL WARMING... AL GORE... NOBEL PRIZE... THINGS THAT TICK OFF SOUTHERN REPUBLICANS... AL GORE.

Is that enough for you @antigoracle? Oooo spooky old AL GORE (Nobel Peace prize winner) has it all over you man. Your a looser baby.
summerhike
2.3 / 5 (15) Sep 05, 2014
This global warming junk is a joke. Scientists always think they have it all figured out. Lots of brains and no wisdom. If they had any wisdom, they'd realize that they barely have knowledge of the tip of the iceberg about all weather, local to global, including the oceans, trees, living organisms, clouds and land interactions that make it a lot more complex than these geniuses account for. Ooooo, we have ice samples, therefore, we can predict it all! The earth survived mega volcanic explosions that pumped out way more greenhouse gases than we ever had, so I'm not worried about us. It's all political moves to get more control and tax more, anyway. Wake up, everyone.
freethinking
2.1 / 5 (14) Sep 05, 2014
when reading these posts.... I keep wondering how many have been posted by Paid Progressive Government Trolls (PPGT's)

How to tell is a poster is a PPGT's? See if their posts match (sometimes word for word, which shows that PPGT's can't think an original thought) what is coming out of the Democratic National Committee
rockwolf1000
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 05, 2014
@freethinking

How to tell is a poster is a PPGT's?


It seems freethinking is running fast and loose with his English.
Water_Prophet
2.3 / 5 (6) Sep 05, 2014
@Vietvet, pardon. Even so, the PacNW was getting its power greenly (incl nuclearly), even 40 years+ ago...
@axemaster, I think you're right.
Everyone is hung up on the ocean temperatures saving us, but the specific heat of water is 1, and the heat of fusion of ice is 333x that. Plus water doesn't care what temperature it is, unlike ice,which cares about 0C. Very little buffering capability.

If we can get can persuade the Earth to cover the hemisphere in snow for the next few years, we might increase the albedo... but this sounds like a fools dream, even if it is the ethanol and increased wind causing the pause.
gkam
3.9 / 5 (15) Sep 06, 2014
Why the rabid opposition to the fact we are changing the climate of Earth?

The discussion seems to be between Science which studies these things, and business, which wants to enrich itself at any cost.

Who has the credibility? The anti-science folk are still getting their "information" from the people who screamed"WMD!" at them.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (15) Sep 06, 2014
Why the rabid opposition to the fact we are changing the climate of Earth?
@gkam
GOOD question... Here is one reason, which is fascinating considering the implications (social, psychological and otherwise) http://arstechnic...nformed/

Some people just don't like facts, either.
There are people like Water_Prophet (formerly Alchemist) who may be concerned, but delusional... or perhaps being paid by sources to spread anti-AGW content?
as shown here: http://phys.org/n...ate.html

the study for the above link is interesting, and here: http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

Big business/oil etc has a vested interest in undermining AGW science. as shown above... perhaps some here are simply paid for their efforts?
Egleton
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 06, 2014
How unfortunate that the only cooling trend is in the USA where education and critical thinking skills are considered undesireable by the Powers That Be.
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/

Home of "The Dukes of Hazzard" and other such reality-distorting dross, Yee haa!!
Garbage in Garbage out.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 07, 2014
Hey howhot, why don't you learn howtoread.
That to NASA's site clearly shows the US cooling since the 1930's.


I do wonder....

http://data.giss....ig.D.gif

Don't see much sign of the US cooling there my friend.
gkam
4.1 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2014
As I put it in another thread: I have a Master of Science in this field, and want to debate the Deniers. no cutting and pasting of the words of others, we will have a debate, . . if they dare.

We can start with the ten hottest years in history, and segue into other considerations such as the loss of shells in copepods, and their effect on the Marine Food Chain.

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
gkam
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 07, 2014
I see my post was voted down by somebody without the spine to discuss the post. I thought this was an exchange of ideas, not a popularity contest.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (14) Sep 07, 2014
I see my post was voted down by somebody without the spine to discuss the post. I thought this was an exchange of ideas, not a popularity contest.


gkam:

I wish you luck with your "debate" but you will not get one with our resident deniers. They know nothing of the science except what they read in denialist Blogs and right-wing media. They excel in quote-mining from supposed *experts* or famous people - as though an opinion has more value than the science ...Oh, and some will even argue empirical science - which definitely is not up for debate.
BTW: I know what I'm talking about as well - a retired meteorologist with the UKMO.

Welcome anyway and the trick is to be authoritative (they hate that) - "appeal to authority", you see, and do not take their stupidity personally.
I just come on here to deny ignorance. That is all you can hope for.
Mind there are neutrals viewing and I keep them in mind when I post.
Tim Thompson
4.7 / 5 (13) Sep 07, 2014
antogoracle:
That to NASA's site clearly shows the US cooling since the 1930's.

Really? Which NASA site? This one clearly shows the continental U.S. warming fairly consistently since 1970, with 2012 an exceptional & unusually warm year (an "outlier" as the data-cruncher would say).
http://data.giss....aphs_v3/

MikPetter
4.7 / 5 (12) Sep 07, 2014
Really?? The USA has cooled since 1930's??? koff koff...not quite
http://www.ncdc.n...;month=7
gkam
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 07, 2014
Most non-scientists are not aware that not only is the world warming, the climate change increased heating of the oceans results in more severe weather.

Look at the graphs above and see the rise in extremes.
Returners
2 / 5 (8) Sep 07, 2014
All skeptics and middle grounders, heres what we should do.

Quite simply, pray about it.

"Dear Lord,
If GW is real and is anything other than a natural cycle, and is our fault, then open our fool eyes and forgive us for being stubborn, bull-headed, rebellious, and ignorant. Regardless, please help intelligent,faithful people to solve our pollution problems. A miracle would be nice, but perhaps if you would only help mankind have a modicum of sense, that would be enough. Also, on more important note, please help us to end terrorism everywhere, and please help us to stop rape in the U.S. especially on college campuses, where emasculate males feel the need to abuse our young women by drugging them or otherwise overpowering them. It would be helpful if every man convicted of rape should have to pay alimony to his victims for the rest of his life. We know that God is able to provide, exceeding, abundantly, above all needs. Amen."
gkam
4.2 / 5 (5) Sep 07, 2014
Returners, . . . It's a start.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (7) Sep 08, 2014
All skeptics and middle grounders, heres what we should do.

Quite simply, pray about it.

"Dear Lord,
If GW is real and is anything other than a natural cycle, and is our fault... solve our pollution problems. A miracle would be nice... end terrorism... stop rape in the U.S... emasculate males... We know that God is able to provide, exceeding, abundantly, above all needs. Amen."
Thats right. Wish with all your might. While youre at it, please ask the ultimate wish-granter what rape and terrorism have to do with AGW, and why he would think that bundling your favorite causes into one prayer would make it easier for him to address them?

Easier for you because drug-induced mania naturally seeks economies in off-topic postings and wishings. Is god similarly annoyed when when you flood-wish do you think?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2014
Hey howhot, why don't you learn howtoread.
That to NASA's site clearly shows the US cooling since the 1930's.


I do wonder....

http://data.giss....ig.D.gif

Don't see much sign of the US cooling there my friend.

Yes runrig, that's the fraudulent graph that was mean to fool the AGW idiots. Would you find us the corresponding article that came with that graph.
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/
gkam
5 / 5 (8) Sep 08, 2014
antigoracle, what do you propose we do about the increasing acidification of the seas? Are you concerned about the loss of shells in the copepods, and the consequences for the Marine Food Chain?
runrig
5 / 5 (9) Sep 08, 2014

Yes runrig, that's the fraudulent graph that was mean to fool the AGW idiots. Would you find us the corresponding article that came with that graph.
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/



? OK show me the non-fraudulent version for US temps up to 2013.
Jixo
1 / 5 (2) Sep 09, 2014
First snow in Canada (Calgary, Alberta)
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2014
@Jixo

http://i.imgur.com/8d2Opqu.jpg (Calgary, Alberta)


Yes but....http://globalnews...bertans/
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 09, 2014
http://i.imgur.com/8d2Opqu.jpg (Calgary, Alberta)


Yes indeed, well spotted - weather happens every day in every part of the world.
SURFIN85
1 / 5 (5) Sep 09, 2014
"My bet is on transferring consciousness to a non-biological medium as the solution, which is my main motivation for going into biomed. You can think of it as my scientifically-informed desperation move."

Too bad, my millennial (?) friend. For years I heard and read from the boomer cohort of do-nothings that the best hope we had was your generation coming up with the solutions to all our problems. I thought this was a patently ludicrous evasion of responsibility and a complete derangement of logic.

antigoracle
1 / 5 (7) Sep 09, 2014

Yes runrig, that's the fraudulent graph that was mean to fool the AGW idiots. Would you find us the corresponding article that came with that graph.
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/



? OK show me the non-fraudulent version for US temps up to 2013.

Yes, that non-fraudulent data, if ever exposed, would mean prison for those responsible.
Just in case you missed the fraud. Here you go.
http://stevengodd...e-fraud/
runrig
4.5 / 5 (8) Sep 09, 2014

Yes runrig, that's the fraudulent graph that was mean to fool the AGW idiots. Would you find us the corresponding article that came with that graph.
http://www.giss.n...nsen_07/


If you ... no prob not - would like to read up more about it including criticism of Goddard (Heller) from Watts and Curry in getting his maths wrong then read here....

http://blog.hotwh...-be.html
and here...
http://climatecro...in-cave/
and here...
http://www.politi...l-warmi/
And here amongst many (not deniers as well calling bollocks.
http://moyhu.blog...ies.html

You really ought to be more discerning anti.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 09, 2014
From....
http://climatecro...in-cave/

"Via email, I asked Anthony Watts, proprietor of WattsUpWithThat, what he thinks of Goddard's claims. He responded…

…while it is true that NOAA does a tremendous amount of adjustment to the surface temperature record, the word "fabrication" implies that numbers are being plucked out of thin air in a nefarious way when it isn't exactly the case.

"Goddard" is wrong is his assertions of fabrication, but the fact is that NCDC isn't paying attention to small details, and the entire process from B91's to CONUS creates an inflated warming signal. We published a preliminary paper two years ago on this which you can read here: http://wattsupwit...ease-2/"

antigoracle
1 / 5 (6) Sep 09, 2014
Thanks runrig, for pointing us to even greater fraud from the AGW Cult.
http://wattsupwit...ata-set/
howhot2
5 / 5 (9) Sep 10, 2014
@antigoracle, if you want to talk about FRAUD, why don't we start with you? You know wattsupwitit is a dark money funded phony wingnut site that has been infiltrated by nazi skin heads that like to pick on nerds. The article you reference for example, was just a disconnect conflagration of falsities, it was like reading "Moby Dick blows his snout".

I can't believe there are people that stupid that believe the denier shit.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Sep 10, 2014
For the hard of comprehension - again.....

"…while it is true that NOAA does a tremendous amount of adjustment to the surface temperature record, the word "fabrication" implies that numbers are being plucked out of thin air in a nefarious way when it isn't exactly the case.

"Goddard" is wrong is his assertions of fabrication,"

This, a quote from the head Denialist Blogger.

For those neutrals - my links prior will explain to you the necessary revisions to climate data when station stop reporting and when the time of reading of max temp is changed - in this case from 2100 to 0900 the next day. This is because when reading in the evening it could well still be at/near the daily max and as the thermometer is reset ......... err, it will read the SAME temp the next day at 2100 even if the temp that day never rose above the dawn min.

Anything else you'd like to know, just ask.
Could you provide a temp graph of Hadcrut data for the US and show us that GISS is "fraudulent" in any way.
runrig
5 / 5 (7) Sep 10, 2014
Anti:
Further from your link to Watts...
"While we won't know until all of the data is corrected and new numbers run, this may affect some of the absolute temperature claims made on SOTC reports such as "warmest month ever" and 3rd warmest, etc. THE MAGNITUDE OF THE SHIFTS, IF ANY, IS UNKNOWN AT THIS POINT. LONG TERM TREND WILL PROBABLY NOT BE AFFECTED."
(my caps)

What is the point in being "fraudulent" for the the odd reporting station in a set of data that comprises just 2% of the globe?
Do you REALLY think this is all part of a global conspiracy to make the world appear warmer than in reality?
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Sep 10, 2014
Hey runrig, I guess you missed the part about the falsified Maine data from NOAA.
So, here you go again.
http://wattsupwit...ata-set/
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Sep 10, 2014
Do you REALLY think this is all part of a global conspiracy to make the world appear warmer than in reality?


if you want to talk about FRAUD, why don't we start with you? You know wattsupwitit is a dark money funded phony wingnut site that has been infiltrated by nazi skin heads that like to pick on nerds.


Conspiracy!
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Sep 10, 2014
Hey runrig, I guess you missed the part about the falsified Maine data from NOAA.
So, here you go again.
http://wattsupwit...ata-set/

Hey Anti, I guess you missed this from one of your links on a current thread.
And I said, f**^^g pointless my friend. Therefore it's not happening.

"Since last week, mainstream sources have responded to Goddard, revealing that indeed, his methods were flawed and his conclusions wrong. Not everybody has got the word yet, but that's just how information propagates. We naturally listen to the information we like (confirmation bias) and we actively seek to dismiss the information that makes us uncomfortable. "