# New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Page 3 of 4   1, 2, 3, 4

## New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

First topic message reminder :

IN BRIEF

• Independent data pulled from a combination of satellites, robotic floats, and ocean buoys has confirmed a 2015 study that disproved the "global warming hiatus."

• This confirmation bolsters the already sound argument that climate change is not slowing down, emphasizing our need to find clean-energy alternatives to fossil fuels.

https://futurism.com/new-research-confirms-that-the-global-warming-hiatus-is-a-myth/

Guest
Guest

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Tommy Monk wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:

We have had warmer periods over the last few thousand years when there has been lower co2 levels... so...!?

What the fuck are you talking about? The last several years have been the hottest on record!

Now who's flip flopping around...?

You are happy to quote historical estimations of co2 levels... but temperatures only count since 'records began' about 100-150 years ago...!?

Those "estimated temperatures" are actually known with precision and are well-documented:

The most important of these animals, foraminifera (or forams for short), make their tiny shells from a form of calcium carbonate (CaCO3). This carbonate is found in many common geological features, such as the White Cliffs of Dover, which were once at the bottom of the sea.

What makes calcium carbonate important? The carbonate, originally dissolved in the oceans, contains oxygen, whose atoms exist in two naturally-occurring stable isotopes, 18O and 16O. The ratio of these two isotopes tells us about past temperatures. When the carbonate solidifies to form a shell, the isotopic ratio in the oxygen (written as δ18O) varies slightly depending on the temperature of the surrounding water. The change is only a tiny 0.2 parts per million decrease for each degree of temperature increase. Nevertheless, this is sufficient for us to be able to estimate the temperature of the water in which the forams lived millions of years ago.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/

Similarly, analyzing the gas from bubbles trapped in ancient ice gives us a very accurate picture of how much C02 was in the atmosphere long ago.

Just because *you* can't imagine how someone would analyze temperatures and C02 concentrations from thousands or millions of years ago doesn't mean it can't be done!

_________________
It's so hard to be without you / used to feel so angry, now I only feel humble.

Ben Reilly
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American people.

Posts : 27288
Join date : 2013-01-19
Age : 44
Location : Tesco's

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

So you are now admitting that historical estimations of temperature before 'records began' are valid and relevant...?

So you must also admit that there have been warmer periods when co2 levels have been lower...!?

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell

Tommy Monk

Posts : 22955
Join date : 2014-02-12

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Tommy Monk wrote:So you are now admitting that historical estimations of temperature before 'records began' are valid and relevant...?

So you must also admit that there have been warmer periods when co2 levels have been lower...!?

Guest
Guest

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Didn't someone say that temperatures are not an indication of global warming? Maybe I imagined it.

_________________

"There never was an Aaron, counselor".

Raggamuffin

Posts : 33746
Join date : 2014-02-10

Thorin wrote:

## What the science says...

 Select a level... Basic Intermediate Greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. This time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions.

## Climate Myth...

Climate's changed before
Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)

Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions. Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.

### Abrupt vs slow change.

Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other times of high CO2 in the atmosphere because the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks. Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of years to adjust to those levels.

Lush life in the Arctic during the Eocene, 50 million years ago (original art - Stephen C. Quinn, The American Museum of Natural History, N.Y.C)

But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped abruptly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today.

Those abrupt global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian, Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods. The symptoms from those events (a big, rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification) are all happening today with human-caused climate change.
So yes, the climate has changed before humans, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions (just like today) were generally highly destructive to life on Earth.

https://skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

Tommy's claim debunked

Has Tommy ever heard of ice cores?

Guest
Guest

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Ice cores...?

Here's a graph of ice core data going back a few hundred thousands of years...

(Don't know how to resize it to fit... Either right click and select 'view image' to see full picture... or link below...)

And here's one just looking at the last 18000 years in greenland...

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/greenland.18kyr.gif

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell

Tommy Monk

Posts : 22955
Join date : 2014-02-12

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Tommy Monk wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:I said millions of years... I didn't say a couple of million years... 600 million years is millions of years!!!

You fucking jokers!!!

I make a statement... you laugh at me and say it's wrong... then you admit it's true... while still trying to laugh at me and claim I'm wrong!!!

You complete cretins!!!

TOMMY you brain dead twat, Plants did not exists in the atmosphere to absorb carbon until about 420million years ago

AGAIN get an education!!!

Your Saying in a time period from 600 million year ago to today it was that level, which it was only in the early stages by 400 million years ago it had dropped to 4000 then by 380 million years ago after the emergence of above water plants it dropped to 2000,  600 million years ago NO LIFE COULD BREATH THAT ATMOSPHERE!!! get it through you fucking head back then there was NO LAND LIFE!!! if we return to that state there will be NO LAND LIFE that includes fucking humans
I pointed out things that someone that understands would use like periods that are relevant because the don't go from start of undersea multi-celluar life until today
I used more specific time period Like the emergence of carbon sequestering plants AKA the EXACT Fucking thing the article you posted points out is the MAJOR carbon Store on this planet!!!

Listen you cretin... I never said otherwise!!!

All I said was a statement on past co2 levels!!!

Which is 100% true!!!

that YOU are so Fucking Dumb you don't understand that we cant return to that (because everything will die) and it is NOT relevant at all because Plants Significantly Changed the chemical composition of the Atmosphere. That was the Driver of Life above the water line, everything changed at that Point so
JUST STFU!!!!
You are so Dumb it makes my head hurt, how are you even capable of breathing And AGAIN STFU because I Want to be able to keep breathing and none of us will be able to because of MORONS like you!!

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?

veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 19095
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 36
Location : Australia

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Veya... you are still ranting your hyperbole filled waffle I see...

Try arguing the points I have made rather than ranting insane fantasy waffle about things I haven't said...!!!

Thanks...

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell

Tommy Monk

Posts : 22955
Join date : 2014-02-12

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

You have NOT made any valid points

I already told you that you are saying before life was above the surface
Before the Great Devonian explosions of life diversity when The atmosphere was so significantly different that Dragon fly were meters long without Pumping organs. In todays atmosphere they are limited to inches. And that was still in the 2000ppm Not 6000+ ppm which has not existed since plants have existed above the water to sequester carbon.

You have NO POINT, You have not made a single Valid argument against human driven climate change and the devastation it is going to have, You said when there was no life it was that level.. Do you not understands HOW retarded that statement is ???

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?

veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 19095
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 36
Location : Australia

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

It's been warmer over the last few thousand years with lower levels of co2!!!

Get this through your thick head... co2 is not the cause of warmer temperatures!!!

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell

Tommy Monk

Posts : 22955
Join date : 2014-02-12

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

TWO YEARS AGO,  I nominated Tommy as the stupidest person on this forum...

Today,  I'm labelling him as possibly one of the stupidest --  if not the stupidest -- critters that I've encountered on the Internet in nearly thirty years..

_________________
It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.
Our life is frittered away by details. Simplify, simplify.
The mass of men lead lives of quite desperation.
Henry David Thoreau

'Wolfie

Posts : 7561
Join date : 2016-02-24
Age : 61
Location : Lake Macquarie, NSW, Australia

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Tommy Monk wrote:It's been warmer over the last few thousand years with lower levels of co2!!!

Get this through your thick head... co2 is not the cause of warmer temperatures!!!

You are and idiot.
that is NOW a Fact proven by yourself.

Because what you posted is JUST NOT TRUE !! end of story you are just posting things that are Wrong.

in the Devonian  Average Surface temp was about 6C higher than today (again in this period about 420 to 360 million years ago, with about 2200ppm co2 and was the period in which Plants moved onto dry land the first fish start crawling)

The Devonian was a relatively warm period, and probably lacked any glaciers. The temperature gradient from the equator to the poles was not as large as it is today. The weather was also very arid, mostly along the equator where it was the driest.[18] Reconstruction of tropical sea surface temperature from conodont apatite implies an average value of 30 °C (86 °F) in the Early Devonian.[18] CO2 levels dropped steeply throughout the Devonian period as the burial of the newly evolved forests drew carbon out of the atmosphere into sediments; this may be reflected by a Mid-Devonian cooling of around 5 °C (9 °F).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devonian

In the Permian period (about 290-250 million years ago, Dinosaurs do not exist yet)  you have co2 at about 900ppm (triple pre industrial levels in which homo sapiens have existed) and it was 2C higher average temps than today.

The climate in the Permian was quite varied. At the start of the Permian, the Earth was still in an Ice Age, which began in the Carboniferous. Glaciers receded around the mid-Permian period as the climate gradually warmed, drying the continent's interiors.[17] In the late Permian period, the drying continued although the temperature cycled between warm and cool cycles

Your statement is JUST WRONG there is no 2 ways about it. You are FACTUALLY INCORRECT.

End of Story now STFU and get out of the way, the smart capable educated people Need to fix shit or we are all fucked[/quote]

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?

veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 19095
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 36
Location : Australia

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Idiots!

It was warmer 1000 years ago when co2 levels were lower...

So...

What do you think might have been the cause of the extra warmth back then...!?

I'll give you a clue... it's a big bright hot yellow thing in the sky during the day time!!!

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell

Tommy Monk

Posts : 22955
Join date : 2014-02-12

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

So tommy said we could not measure temp from  the past

I said ice cores and he does a u-turn

He still evades to discount Co2 levels from humans and ignores this with still more misdirection

No point talking to someone who does understand science and is only trolling this thread to disrupt

Guest
Guest

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Thorin wrote:So tommy said we could not measure temp from  the past

No I didn't... don't know where you got that from...!?

I said ice cores and he does a u-turn

No... you asked if I'd heard of ice cores and I posted up 2 graphs of ice core data... both showing plenty of warmer periods in history when there were lower co2 levels... funny thing is you didn't understand either of them...

He still evades to discount Co2 levels from humans and ignores this with still more misdirection

Erm... what!?

No point talking to someone who does understand science and is only trolling this thread to disrupt

That would be you dodge!!!

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell

Tommy Monk

Posts : 22955
Join date : 2014-02-12

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Tommy Monk wrote:

Idiots!

It was warmer 1000 years ago when co2 levels were lower...

So...

What do you think might have been the cause of the extra warmth back then...!?

I'll give you a clue... it's a big bright hot yellow thing in the sky during the day time!!!

Loathe as I am to drop this chart here again, since you proved unable to understand it the last time:

The sun is getting cooler while the Earth warms. So unless you can show how that works, it might be time to contemplate whether adding heat-trapping gas to the atmosphere ... could cause the atmosphere to trap heat!

_________________
It's so hard to be without you / used to feel so angry, now I only feel humble.

Ben Reilly
Cowboy King. Dread Pirate of the Guadalupe. Enemy of the American people.

Posts : 27288
Join date : 2013-01-19
Age : 44
Location : Tesco's

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Tommy Monk wrote:

Idiots!

It was warmer 1000 years ago when co2 levels were lower...

So...

What do you think might have been the cause of the extra warmth back then...!?

I'll give you a clue... it's a big bright hot yellow thing in the sky during the day time!!!

NO IT WASN'T!!!

Even the Peak during the medieval warm period has already been surpassed !!!

And STFU MORON

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?

veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 19095
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 36
Location : Australia

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

And the reason why your solar irradiance graph shows a distinct dip on the 11 years average line is simply because there is only the low point of solar activity showing on there to calculate the average from... until the regular high point of solar activity cycle has also been factored in, there cannot possibly be a true calculation/representation of the overall average for this period!!!

It's pretty much like someone trying to give you a figure for average rainfall for the year... and telling you how low the rainfall has been... but only measuring the first 6 months of the dry season into the calculation... and leaving out the 6 months rainy season!!!

And veya... I think you need to look at the ice core graph pictures again that I posted up earlier...!

It's been warmer before in recent few thousand years when there has been lower co2 levels!!!

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell

Tommy Monk

Posts : 22955
Join date : 2014-02-12

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Notice how Tommy provides no link again

Here is what Naza shows and can people see what Tommy has done lol

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

Where Tommy is getting his one Naza measurement

## What the science says...

 Select a level... Basic Intermediate Advanced The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming.

## Climate Myth...

Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
"Satellite measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979, the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis - a test that the hypothesis fails." ([url=http://web.archive.org/web/20080719030643/http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/RMC on warming - for Telegraph 05-04 ZZ.pdf]Bob Carter[/url])

John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated Spencer and Christy (1992). One early version of their data even showed a cooling trend (Christy et al. 1995).
Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.
To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data.

The MSU satellite data is collected from a number of satellites orbiting & providing daily coverage of some 80% of the Earth's surface. Each day the orbits shift and 100% coverage is achieved every 3-4 days. The microwave sensors on the satellites do not directly measure temperature, but rather radiation given off by oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. The intensity of this radiation is directly proportional to the temperature of the air and is therefore used to estimate global temperatures.
There are also differences between the sensors that were onboard each satellite and merging this data to one continuous record is not easily done. It was nearly 13 years after the orginal papers that the adjustments that Christy and Spencer originally applied were found to be incorrect. Mears et al. (2003) and Mears et al. (2005).
When the correct adjustments to the data were applied the data matched much more closely the trends expected by climate models. It was also more consistent with the historical record of troposphere temperatures obtained from weather balloons. As better methods to adjust for biases in instruments and orbital changes have been developed, the differences between the surface temperature record and the troposphere have steadily decreased.
At least two other groups keep track of the tropospheric temperature using satellites and they all now show warming in the troposphere that is consistent with the surface temperature record. Furthermore data also shows now that the stratosphere is cooling as predicted by the physics.
All three groups measuring temperatures of the troposphere show a warming trend. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program produced a study (pdf) in April 2006 on this topic. Lead authors included John Christy of UAH and Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Labs. The first page has this quote:
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."
There are still some discrepancies between satellite measured temperatures in the tropics and those measured by radiosondes. Most researchers believe this difference is likely due to instrument errors.
The original discrepancy is an excellent example of how science works and of critical thinking. With many different indicators showing warming, it did not make sense that the troposphere would be cooling. This discrepancy was taken very seriously by the scientific community, and the consistency and accuracy of all relevant data were examined intensely.
Science advances by trial and error. The result is an increased knowledge of how to measure the temperature of the troposphere from space.

## What the science says...

Satellites don't measure temperatures, and the uncertainty in the trend is five times as large as that in the global surface temperature record.

## Climate Myth...

Satellite record is more reliable than thermometers
"The satellite data are the best data we have."
Ted Cruz

Satellites don't measure temperature.  As Carl Mears of the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite dataset and Ben Santer wrote,
they are not thermometers in space. The satellite [temperature] data ... were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers. Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties.
Scientists process the MSU data, applying a model to make numerous adjustments, in order to come up with a synthetic estimate of the atmospheric temperature.
As Andrew Dessler describes in the video below by Peter Sinclair, MSUs and advanced MSUs (AMSUs) measure voltages on detectors, which themselves are detecting microwave signals emitted by oxygen molecules in the Earth's atmosphere that change proportionally to temperature changes.  To translate these microwave detections into estimates of the temperature of various layers of the Earth's atmosphere requires a model and a lot of data processing and adjustments.

### Satellite Temperature Record Challenges

Converting those MSU microwave detections into a reliable long-term synthetic atmospheric temperature record is a challenging proposition, made all the more difficult by a number of confounding factors.  For example, the satellites themselves have a limited life span.  The overall satellite MSU record is comprised of data from numerous satellites, and each has a different calibration, orbit, etc. that must be accounted for.  During that life span, the satellites also experience friction, which causes their orbits to drift.  If not correctly taken into account, these factors can create a bias in the synthetic temperature record.
Another issue is that the MSU detections can be influenced by factors besides just oxygen microwave signals, for example, cloud liquid water.  Weng et al. (2014) found that the MSUchannel (Channel 3) that focuses on the lowest level of the atmosphere (the lower troposphere) is most influenced by the presence of cloud liquid water.  Weng et al. suggest,
the global mean temperature in the low and middle troposphere has a larger warming rate (about 20–30% higher) when the cloud-affected radiances are removed from AMSU-A data.
Roy Spencer who, with John Christy, runs the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) satellite synthetic temperature dataset disagrees, believing that the cloud-caused bias is insignificant.  The magnitude of this bias in the satellite data remains an unresolved question.
Another issue related to changes in the satellites' orbits is called 'diurnal drift'.  The satellites are in 'sun synchronous orbits' and are meant to stay aligned with the sun so that they always cross the equator at the same time.  If they don’t, then the normal daily temperature cycles below will start to add a false bias to the data.  The UAH team tried to get around this bias in version 5 of their dataset by attempting to use these satellites during periods when the diurnal drift is small, while other groups (RSS and NOAA) apply a correction based on the diurnal drift in a global climate model.  Po-Chedley et al. (2015) argue that the UAHmethod creates a cool bias in their dataset.
There are still further challenges, for example the fact that the increased greenhouse effectcools the stratosphere, which is the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere.  If microwave measurements from the stratosphere bleed into estimates of tropospheric temperatures, that can also cause a cool bias in the trend.  The UAH dataset has required a number of significant adjustments since its inception to correct for these sorts of factors.
The figure below shows all the processing required to get from voltage measurements on an MSU sensor for the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) group to an estimate of the temperature in the atmosphere.
Flowchart of the processing algorithm for the RSS satellite data, from Mears et al. (2011)
As a result, the uncertainty in the satellite data is larger than that in the surface temperature record, which is based on direct measurements by thermometers. In particular, estimated satellite trend observational uncertainty is five times greater.

[i]Uncertainty in the temperature satellite and surface temperature trends, estimated from the RSS and HadCRUT4 ensembles. The boxes show the mean and interquartile range of the trends on 1979-2012 in each ensemble. Whiskers indicate the 95% interval (2.5%-97.5%). Crosses indicate outliers. Created by Kevin Cowtan.[/i]
Kevin Cowtan summarizes,
on the basis of the best understanding of the record providers themselves, the surface temperature record appears to be the better source of trendinformation. The satellite record is valuable for its uniform geographical coverage and ability to measure different levels in the atmosphere, but it is not our best source of data concerning temperature change at the surface.

### Tropospheric temperature trend disagreements

The UAH and RSS groups aren't the only ones trying to estimate the temperature of the atmosphere.  We also have direct measurements made by temperature sensors on weather balloons, for example.  These are generally in good agreement with the MSU lower atmosphere temperature estimates, until recent years.  Since the turn of the century, the UAH and RSS datasets show little warming of lower tropospheric temperatures, while weather balloons show continued warming.  For example, Sherwood et al. (2015) concluded that the weather balloon data "contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface."
Similarly, a weather balloon dataset from NOAA called RATPAC shows a growing divergence from the satellite lower troposphere temperature estimates over the past several years.
RATPAC vs. RSS lower troposphere temperature estimates.  Figure created by Tamino.
There are also other groups besides UAH and RSS that have used the MSU data to create their own lower and mid-troposphere temperature estimates, and these different estimates show quite a lot of variation.  These groups are all using the same raw MSU and AMSUdata, and arrive at very different final estimates of atmospheric temperatures and trends.
As Carl Mears of RSS has said,
I consider [surface temperature datasets] to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).

Tropical mid-troposphere temperature satellite trend estimates from different groups using different diurnal drift correction approaches. From Po-Chedley et al. (2014).

### What makes "the best" the best?

This particular myth deals with the claim that the satellite data are "the best data we have" for measuring global warming.  What's "best" is a subjective judgment call, but if the goal is to have greater certainty about the data and trends, the surface temperature record is "better" than the satellite data.
Additionally, only about 2% of the global energy imbalance goes into warming the atmosphere. Over 90% goes into warming the oceans, so if the goal is to best measure the overall warming of the Earth, ocean heat content data would be "the best" single source.
A visual depiction of how much global warming heat is going into the various components of the climate system for the period 1993 to 2003, calculated from IPCC AR4 5.2.2.3.
Another consideration is that humans live on the surface, not kilometers up in the atmosphere.  The surface temperature record measures temperature changes where we live, which is arguably the most relevant in terms of effects on human society.  By that standard, the surface temperature record would be "the best."
As Carl Mears of RSS noted toward the end of the video above, what we should really do, rather than trying to decide which piece of data is "best," is to consider all the data.  That includes the temperature of the atmosphere, surface, and oceans, melting ice, rising oceans, shifting ecosystems, and so on.  These paint a clear picture of what's happening with the Earth's climate – it's warming and changing fast.
Global heat content data, from Nuccitelli et al. (2012).
The distinguishing feature of the satellite data is that it shows relatively little warming of the lower atmosphere in recent years.  But given the fact that all other related datasets disagree, and given the large uncertainties in the satellite data, that may be more of a bug than an accurate feature.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Satellite-record-vs-thermometers.htm

Does tommy understand science?
One moment

Guest
Guest

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Once again Tommy proves just what a total fuckwit he truly is...

Around a thousand years ago, there was an unnatural "warming period" that affected an area stretching across Britain, Northern Europe and Russia, and the northern part of North America --  it wasn't the global phenomenon that Tommy tries to paint it as...  At the same time,  much of Africa, Australia and South America were still covered with forests --  offering quite different ecosystems to what we have today..

Likewise, Tommy has several times previously and fallaciously referred to the fabled "Mini Ice Age" that affected Britain and Northern Europe a few hundred years ago --  conveniently ignoring the salient facts that :
* it wasn't a genuine ice age;
*  it was only a localised abnormal cooling period
*   and,  it wasn't a global climate event,  either..

Earlier, Tommy also made a correct and truthful comment :

That CO2 doesn't 'cause' the heating of this planet...

OF COURSE IT DOESN'T --  and nobody on here is/has claimed that it does  !

Heat is only added to the equation from a limited number of sources --  such as :
the Sun
Chemical reactions
Fire
Friction

What the "greenhouse gasses" (e.g. carbon dioxide, methane, ethane, carbon monoxide, and others..) do,  is to trap more heat, predominantly solar radiation, within the earth's atmosphere and on its surface (the "greenhouse effect" --  a central principle in understanding Climatology, Ecology, and Environmental Science..).

While human activities and expansionism over recent centuries is greatly accelerating, exacerbating and exaggeratting the cumulative and interactive effects of adding more heat, removing sources of 'carbon sequestration' (i.e trees..), and trapping that heat.

And life on earth is restricted to relatively narrow ranges of temp's, humidity, radiation levels, O2, CO2, and Nitrogen levels in the environment.

Fuck with those levels too much,  and mankinds' future on this Planet Earth is pretty well stuffed..

Tommy's rants on here are in the main denialist deflections, misdirections, and pseudo-scientific "waffle"...

_________________
It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.
Our life is frittered away by details. Simplify, simplify.
The mass of men lead lives of quite desperation.
Henry David Thoreau

'Wolfie

Posts : 7561
Join date : 2016-02-24
Age : 61
Location : Lake Macquarie, NSW, Australia

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

I hardly consider he's"ranting" Wolf, he's just putting his opinions forward.

nicko

Posts : 12190
Join date : 2013-12-07
Age : 78
Location : rainbow bridge

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

That's raises another good point too, nicko --  Tommy keeps peddling his personal opinions as if they were some kind of "science" backed truth..

Unsubstantiated "opinions" largely backed mostly by referring to oil and mining company-sponsored climate 'denialist' propaganda blogsites...

Even when Tommy quotes actual research, and references genuine facts and figures, he is either found to be misrepresenting what they actually show, or often leaves out those sections or conclusions that clash with his anti-science agenda..

As has often been shown over the last year or two, when the likes of Ben, veya or Victor have followed through with some of Tommy's references -- only to discover that those reports actually contradict the spin that Tommy is attempting to put on them  !

_________________
It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see.
Our life is frittered away by details. Simplify, simplify.
The mass of men lead lives of quite desperation.
Henry David Thoreau

'Wolfie

Posts : 7561
Join date : 2016-02-24
Age : 61
Location : Lake Macquarie, NSW, Australia

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Complete rubbish!

You just don't want to believe what the facts actually show!!!

If you would rather keep believing a made up story instead that doesn't fit the facts... then that is your choice...

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell

Tommy Monk

Posts : 22955
Join date : 2014-02-12

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Tommy Monk wrote:Ice cores...?

Here's a graph of ice core data going back a few hundred thousands of years...

(Don't know how to resize it to fit... Either right click and select 'view image' to see full picture... or link below...)

And here's one just looking at the last 18000 years in greenland...

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/greenland.18kyr.gif

It's funny how some of you will believe ice core samples... until I post a couple that show warmer periods and lower co2 levels...!!!

Then dog breath pops up saying the sources aren't reputable enough... or some other such shite!!!

Most amusing!!!

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell

Tommy Monk

Posts : 22955
Join date : 2014-02-12

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Thorin wrote:Notice how Tommy provides no link again

Here is what Naza shows and can people see what Tommy has done lol

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

Where Tommy is getting his one Naza measurement

## What the science says...

 Select a level... Basic Intermediate Advanced The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming.

## Climate Myth...

Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
"Satellite measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979, the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis - a test that the hypothesis fails." ([url=http://web.archive.org/web/20080719030643/http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/RMC on warming - for Telegraph 05-04 ZZ.pdf]Bob Carter[/url])

John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated Spencer and Christy (1992). One early version of their data even showed a cooling trend (Christy et al. 1995).
Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.
To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data.

The MSU satellite data is collected from a number of satellites orbiting & providing daily coverage of some 80% of the Earth's surface. Each day the orbits shift and 100% coverage is achieved every 3-4 days. The microwave sensors on the satellites do not directly measure temperature, but rather radiation given off by oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. The intensity of this radiation is directly proportional to the temperature of the air and is therefore used to estimate global temperatures.
There are also differences between the sensors that were onboard each satellite and merging this data to one continuous record is not easily done. It was nearly 13 years after the orginal papers that the adjustments that Christy and Spencer originally applied were found to be incorrect. Mears et al. (2003) and Mears et al. (2005).
When the correct adjustments to the data were applied the data matched much more closely the trends expected by climate models. It was also more consistent with the historical record of troposphere temperatures obtained from weather balloons. As better methods to adjust for biases in instruments and orbital changes have been developed, the differences between the surface temperature record and the troposphere have steadily decreased.
At least two other groups keep track of the tropospheric temperature using satellites and they all now show warming in the troposphere that is consistent with the surface temperature record. Furthermore data also shows now that the stratosphere is cooling as predicted by the physics.
All three groups measuring temperatures of the troposphere show a warming trend. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program produced a study (pdf) in April 2006 on this topic. Lead authors included John Christy of UAH and Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Labs. The first page has this quote:
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."
There are still some discrepancies between satellite measured temperatures in the tropics and those measured by radiosondes. Most researchers believe this difference is likely due to instrument errors.
The original discrepancy is an excellent example of how science works and of critical thinking. With many different indicators showing warming, it did not make sense that the troposphere would be cooling. This discrepancy was taken very seriously by the scientific community, and the consistency and accuracy of all relevant data were examined intensely.
Science advances by trial and error. The result is an increased knowledge of how to measure the temperature of the troposphere from space.

## What the science says...

Satellites don't measure temperatures, and the uncertainty in the trend is five times as large as that in the global surface temperature record.

## Climate Myth...

Satellite record is more reliable than thermometers
"The satellite data are the best data we have."
Ted Cruz

Satellites don't measure temperature.  As Carl Mears of the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite dataset and Ben Santer wrote,
they are not thermometers in space. The satellite [temperature] data ... were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers. Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties.
Scientists process the MSU data, applying a model to make numerous adjustments, in order to come up with a synthetic estimate of the atmospheric temperature.
As Andrew Dessler describes in the video below by Peter Sinclair, MSUs and advanced MSUs (AMSUs) measure voltages on detectors, which themselves are detecting microwave signals emitted by oxygen molecules in the Earth's atmosphere that change proportionally to temperature changes.  To translate these microwave detections into estimates of the temperature of various layers of the Earth's atmosphere requires a model and a lot of data processing and adjustments.

### Satellite Temperature Record Challenges

Converting those MSU microwave detections into a reliable long-term synthetic atmospheric temperature record is a challenging proposition, made all the more difficult by a number of confounding factors.  For example, the satellites themselves have a limited life span.  The overall satellite MSU record is comprised of data from numerous satellites, and each has a different calibration, orbit, etc. that must be accounted for.  During that life span, the satellites also experience friction, which causes their orbits to drift.  If not correctly taken into account, these factors can create a bias in the synthetic temperature record.
Another issue is that the MSU detections can be influenced by factors besides just oxygen microwave signals, for example, cloud liquid water.  Weng et al. (2014) found that the MSUchannel (Channel 3) that focuses on the lowest level of the atmosphere (the lower troposphere) is most influenced by the presence of cloud liquid water.  Weng et al. suggest,
the global mean temperature in the low and middle troposphere has a larger warming rate (about 20–30% higher) when the cloud-affected radiances are removed from AMSU-A data.
Roy Spencer who, with John Christy, runs the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) satellite synthetic temperature dataset disagrees, believing that the cloud-caused bias is insignificant.  The magnitude of this bias in the satellite data remains an unresolved question.
Another issue related to changes in the satellites' orbits is called 'diurnal drift'.  The satellites are in 'sun synchronous orbits' and are meant to stay aligned with the sun so that they always cross the equator at the same time.  If they don’t, then the normal daily temperature cycles below will start to add a false bias to the data.  The UAH team tried to get around this bias in version 5 of their dataset by attempting to use these satellites during periods when the diurnal drift is small, while other groups (RSS and NOAA) apply a correction based on the diurnal drift in a global climate model.  Po-Chedley et al. (2015) argue that the UAHmethod creates a cool bias in their dataset.
There are still further challenges, for example the fact that the increased greenhouse effectcools the stratosphere, which is the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere.  If microwave measurements from the stratosphere bleed into estimates of tropospheric temperatures, that can also cause a cool bias in the trend.  The UAH dataset has required a number of significant adjustments since its inception to correct for these sorts of factors.
The figure below shows all the processing required to get from voltage measurements on an MSU sensor for the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) group to an estimate of the temperature in the atmosphere.
Flowchart of the processing algorithm for the RSS satellite data, from Mears et al. (2011)
As a result, the uncertainty in the satellite data is larger than that in the surface temperature record, which is based on direct measurements by thermometers. In particular, estimated satellite trend observational uncertainty is five times greater.

[i]Uncertainty in the temperature satellite and surface temperature trends, estimated from the RSS and HadCRUT4 ensembles. The boxes show the mean and interquartile range of the trends on 1979-2012 in each ensemble. Whiskers indicate the 95% interval (2.5%-97.5%). Crosses indicate outliers. Created by Kevin Cowtan.[/i]
Kevin Cowtan summarizes,
on the basis of the best understanding of the record providers themselves, the surface temperature record appears to be the better source of trendinformation. The satellite record is valuable for its uniform geographical coverage and ability to measure different levels in the atmosphere, but it is not our best source of data concerning temperature change at the surface.

### Tropospheric temperature trend disagreements

The UAH and RSS groups aren't the only ones trying to estimate the temperature of the atmosphere.  We also have direct measurements made by temperature sensors on weather balloons, for example.  These are generally in good agreement with the MSU lower atmosphere temperature estimates, until recent years.  Since the turn of the century, the UAH and RSS datasets show little warming of lower tropospheric temperatures, while weather balloons show continued warming.  For example, Sherwood et al. (2015) concluded that the weather balloon data "contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface."
Similarly, a weather balloon dataset from NOAA called RATPAC shows a growing divergence from the satellite lower troposphere temperature estimates over the past several years.
RATPAC vs. RSS lower troposphere temperature estimates.  Figure created by Tamino.
There are also other groups besides UAH and RSS that have used the MSU data to create their own lower and mid-troposphere temperature estimates, and these different estimates show quite a lot of variation.  These groups are all using the same raw MSU and AMSUdata, and arrive at very different final estimates of atmospheric temperatures and trends.
As Carl Mears of RSS has said,
I consider [surface temperature datasets] to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).

Tropical mid-troposphere temperature satellite trend estimates from different groups using different diurnal drift correction approaches. From Po-Chedley et al. (2014).

### What makes "the best" the best?

This particular myth deals with the claim that the satellite data are "the best data we have" for measuring global warming.  What's "best" is a subjective judgment call, but if the goal is to have greater certainty about the data and trends, the surface temperature record is "better" than the satellite data.
Additionally, only about 2% of the global energy imbalance goes into warming the atmosphere. Over 90% goes into warming the oceans, so if the goal is to best measure the overall warming of the Earth, ocean heat content data would be "the best" single source.
A visual depiction of how much global warming heat is going into the various components of the climate system for the period 1993 to 2003, calculated from IPCC AR4 5.2.2.3.
Another consideration is that humans live on the surface, not kilometers up in the atmosphere.  The surface temperature record measures temperature changes where we live, which is arguably the most relevant in terms of effects on human society.  By that standard, the surface temperature record would be "the best."
As Carl Mears of RSS noted toward the end of the video above, what we should really do, rather than trying to decide which piece of data is "best," is to consider all the data.  That includes the temperature of the atmosphere, surface, and oceans, melting ice, rising oceans, shifting ecosystems, and so on.  These paint a clear picture of what's happening with the Earth's climate – it's warming and changing fast.
Global heat content data, from Nuccitelli et al. (2012).
The distinguishing feature of the satellite data is that it shows relatively little warming of the lower atmosphere in recent years.  But given the fact that all other related datasets disagree, and given the large uncertainties in the satellite data, that may be more of a bug than an accurate feature.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Satellite-record-vs-thermometers.htm

Does tommy understand science?
One moment

lol

Guest
Guest

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Tommy Monk wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:Ice cores...?

Here's a graph of ice core data going back a few hundred thousands of years...

(Don't know how to resize it to fit... Either right click and select 'view image' to see full picture... or link below...)

And here's one just looking at the last 18000 years in greenland...

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/greenland.18kyr.gif

It's funny how some of you will believe ice core samples... until I post a couple that show warmer periods and lower co2 levels...!!!

Then dog breath pops up saying the sources aren't reputable enough... or some other such shite!!!

Most amusing!!!

Look at the graphs I posted...

It has been warmer for most of the last 8000 years... and with lower co2 levels!!!

How can that be...!!!???

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell

Tommy Monk

Posts : 22955
Join date : 2014-02-12

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Low solar levels during Ordovician Period

## What the science says...

During the Ordovician, solar output was 4% lower than current levels, and there was a large continent over the South Pole. Consequently, CO2 levels at around 1,000 to 2,300 ppm were actually low enough to promote glaciation in the southern continent of Gondwana. Ample geological and geochemical evidence points to strong weathering in parallel with the cooling of the Ordovician climate. Since rock weathering reduces atmospheric CO2, this again reinforces the scientific fact that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.

## Climate Myth...

CO2 was higher in the late Ordovician
"To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today - 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming." (Monte Hieb)

Older scientific papers inferred very high CO2 levels in the Ordovician, generating a paradox of a cold climate during a time of high greenhouse gas levels. But recent work has shown that atmospheric CO2 was much lower than the myth claims, and it kept falling through the Ordovician. It was less than 8 times preindustrial values towards the end (see the graph below), which may sound very high, but with a 4% fainter sun back then and with a large continent over the South Pole, it was low enough to trigger a major continental ice sheet.
The Ordovician was a time of mountain building (the Taconic/Caledonian orogeny) and violent ashy volcanic eruptions as the continents of Laurentia, Baltica and Avalonia began to collide. Mountain building, lots of fresh volcanic ash and erosion tend to accelerate the weathering of silicate rocks, which draws down CO2 from the atmosphere, cooling the planet on a timeframe of hundreds of thousands to millions of years. And indeed, strontium isotopes confirm a large increase in the contribution of weathered volcanic rocks into ocean waters between about 470 and 450 million years ago. Neodymium isotopes (a proxy for ancient sea level change) show that ice sheets were in place in the late Ordovician.
The latter half of the Ordovician also saw the development of Earth's earliest plant-dominated terrestrial biosphere. Those early moss-like plants accelerated rock weathering rates, simultaneously drawing down CO2 and supplying nutrients like phosphorous to the oceans, which fertilized plankton activity, which further reduced CO2 as their carbon-rich remains sank to the sea bed. The climate cooled so much that it crossed a "tipping point" 444 million years ago, triggering the Hirnantian Glaciation, which was so severe it resulted in one of the biggest mass extinctions since animals first evolved. For more on that see this article.
So, far from presenting a paradox, late Ordovician CO2 levels are entirely consistent with a cool climate and glaciation. Moreover the geological, geochemical and fossil evidence all consistently show that a big drawdown of CO2 drove that cooling, proving again that CO2 is the principle control knob on climates both ancient and modern.

Cooling climate before the Hirnantian Mass Extinction. Cyan horizontal band is the Hirnantian Stage. Redrawn from Armstrong & Harper 2014. 13C-derived CO2 range from Pancost et al 2013, Plant spore first appearance simplified from Edwards et al 2014 and Rubinstein et al 2010.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-was-higher-in-late-Ordovician.htm

What is causing the increase in atmospheric CO2?

## What the science says...

There are many lines of evidence which clearly show that the atmospheric CO2 increase is caused by humans.  The clearest of these is simple accounting - humans are emitting CO2 at a rate twice as fast as the atmospheric increase (natural sinks are absorbing the other half).  There is no question whatsoever that the CO2 increase is human-caused.  This is settled science.

## Climate Myth...

CO2 increase is natural, not human-caused

that atmospheric CO2 increase that we observe is a product of temperature increase, and not the other way around, meaning it is a product of natural variation...it may be the Emily Litella moment for climate science and CO2 – “Never mind…” (Anthony Watts)

### Simple Accounting

The easiest way to prove that the atmospheric CO2 increase is man-made is through a simple accounting approach (i.e. see Cawley 2011).  The equation for the change in atmospheric CO2 (ΔCatm) is
[url=http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=\Delta C_%7Batm%7D = Emissions - Absorption]$\Delta C_{atm} = Emissions - Absorption$[/url]
This says that if we ‘emit’ a ton of carbon by, say, triggering a volcano then the atmospherewill gain a ton. If we ‘absorb’ a ton of carbon by growing a tree, then the atmosphere loses a ton.  We can expand the equation by counting human emissions (HE) and absorption (HA) and natural emissions (NE) and absorption (NA) separately.
[url=http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=\Delta C_%7Batm%7D = NE @plus; HE - NA - HA]$\Delta C_{atm} = NE + HE - NA - HA$[/url]
This works because carbon is additive. If a volcano emits a ton of carbon and a factory emits a ton then the atmosphere has gained two tons. This is a very simple balance sheet for the carbon cycle and fortunately there are ‘accountants’ who have measured some of these values for us.
Recently the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been rising at ~2 parts per million per year, or around 15 billion tons/year. Meanwhile  human emissions excluding land use change (like clearing or planting forests) are 30 billion tons per year. In billions of tons per year we have:
[url=http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=\Delta C_%7Batm%7D = 15]$\Delta C_{atm} = 15$[/url]
[url=http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=HE = 30]$HE = 30$[/url]
[url=http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=15 = NE @plus; 30 - NA - HA]$15 = NE + 30 - NA - HA$[/url]
We can rearrange this:
[url=http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=NE - NA - HA = -15]$NE - NA - HA = -15$[/url]
Humans are also clearing rainforests and changing land use, but here we'll assume that human effects on absorption (HA) are not much different from zero, i.e.
[url=http://www.codecogs.com/eqnedit.php?latex=NE - NA = -15]$NE - NA = -15$[/url]
So Natural Absorption (NA) must be bigger than Natural Emissions (NE). Nature is absorbing more CO2 than it is emitting. It is not causing atmospheric CO2 to rise at all - in fact it is acting to try and reduce atmospheric CO2, and thus the long term rise is entirely because of humans.

### Ocean Acidification

The oceans are the Earth's largest carbon storage medium, so if the atmospheric CO2increase were "natural", it would likely be coming from the oceans.  But we know the CO2increase is not coming from the oceans, because the pH of the oceans is dropping (a.k.a. ocean acidification).
When CO2 is absorbed into a solution, it binds with a water molecule to form a molecule of carbonic acid:
CO2 + H2O = H2CO3
H2CO3 has a rather strong acidifying effect in that 95% of it turns into HCO3-.  This loss of an H+ ion causes the ocean pH to decrease (for more details on ocean acidification, see the OA no OK series).
In short, the fact that the pH of the oceans is decreasing tell us that they are absorbing more carbon than they are releasing, not vice-versa.

### Oceanic CO2 Rising Fastest at the Surface

If CO2 were being driven into the ocean from the air, the oceanic concentration would rise fastest at the surface.  If CO2 were being expelled from the oceans, we would expect to see the opposite - decreasing concentrations at the surface.
The World Ocean Circulation Experiment (WOCE) and the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study (JGOFS) has observed that as we expect for CO2 being driven into the oceans, concentrations of CO2 in the oceans are rising fastest at the surface.

### Atmospheric O2 is Decreasing

Burning carbon requires oxygen (O2), and when we burn an atom of carbon, the required oxygen becomes part of the CO2 molecule.  So if the CO2 increase is caused by burning carbon (fossil fuels), we would expect atmospheric O2 levels to decrease at the same rate.  And that's indeed what we observe (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Atmospheric Oxygen Concentration observed from Cape Grim, Tasmania
There's no reason to expect that a natural release of CO2 would have any effect on atmospheric O2 levels.  On the other hand, the O2 concentration is changing exactly as we would expect from a fossil-fuel driven CO2 increase.

### CO2 Rise is Smoother than Temperature

Some, most recently Murry Salby, have argued that the CO2 rise is in reponse to the temperature rise.  However, the temperature rise has been quite erratic (because there are many factors which impact the average global temperature, especially in the short-term).  If atmospheric CO2 changes were in response to temperature changes, then we would expect to see an erratic rise in CO2 as well.  Instead, the atmospheric CO2 increase is very smooth, similar to the increase in human CO2 emissions.
Figure 2: Human CO2 emissions (blue, left y-axis, Source: IEA) vs. atmospheric CO2concentration (red, right y-axis, Source: Mauna Loa record)

### Isotopic Signature

Carbon is composed of three different isotopes: carbon-12, 13, and 14.  Carbon-12 is by far the most common, while carbon-13 is about 1% of the total, and carbon-14 accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms in the atmosphere.
CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels or burning forests has a different isotopic composition from CO2 in the atmosphere, because plants have a preference for the lighter isotopes (carbon-12 and 13); thus they have lower carbon-13 to 12 ratios. Since fossil fuels are ultimately derived from ancient plants, plants and fossil fuels all have roughly the same carbon-13 to 12 ratio – about 2% lower than that of the atmosphere. As CO2 from these materials is released into, and mixes with, the atmosphere, the average carbon-13 to 12 ratio of the atmosphere decreases.
Reconstructions of atmospheric carbon isotope ratios from various proxy sources have determined that at no time in the last 10,000 years are the carbon-13 to 12 ratios in the atmosphere as low as they are today. Furthermore, the carbon-13 to 12 ratios begin to decline dramatically just as the CO2 starts to increase — around 1850 AD. This is exactly what we expect if the increased CO2 is in fact due to fossil fuel burning beginning in the Industrial Revolution.
Figure 3: Atmospheric carbon-13 ratio observations from Cape Grim, Tasmania
These isotopic observations confirm that the increase in atmospheric CO2 comes from biogenic carbon, not from the oceans or volcanoes.  Some "skeptics" like Murry Salby argue that the carbon-13 ratio isn't unique to fossil fuels.  However, because the carbon-14 ratio has also decreased significantly (Figure 4), we know it's from old (fossil fuel) sources, not modern sources.  This is not new science either, it's something we've known for over half a century (Revelle and Suess 1957), and there  have been many studies confirming these results.  For example, Levin & Hesshaimer (2000):
"It has been erroneously argued that the observed atmospheric CO2 increase since the middle of the 19th century may be due to an ongoing natural perturbation of gross fluxes between the atmosphere, biosphere, and oceans. That the increase is in fact a predominantly anthropogenic disturbance, caused by accelerated release of CO2 from burning of fossil fuels, has been elegantly demonstrated through 14C analyses of tree rings from the last two centuries (Stuiver and Quay 1981; Suess 1955; Tans et al. 1979)."
Figure 4: Temporal change of carbon-14 ratio in tree rings grown at the Pacific coast (Levin & Hesshaimer 2000)

### Settled Science

As you can see, there are many lines of evidence showing that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human fossil fuel combustion.  Each one of these lines of evidence is very conclusive on its own, and when all put together, it's abundantly clear that the science is settled on this issue.

Most amusing that again clearly Tommy cannot see his error, which is why he cannot understand science and why humans are responsible for the change in climate change

He still cannot understand CO'2 levels and what causes them

No scientist denies high levels in the past but have easily explained them, but poor Tommy cannot firgure his out

One moment

Priceless

Guest
Guest

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

What are you wittering on about dodge...!!!???

You don't have the faintest idea about any of that wall of waffle you posted... do you...!!!???

Why are you posting limited/selective theory about the ordovician period as undisputed fact...?

And what has any of that got to do with the almost indisputable ice core data that I posted about the last few thousand years... and which have showed most of the last 8000 years being warmer than now and with considerably lower co2 levels than now...!?

But... just to give you the benefit of the doubt... and on the slim chance that you actually understood any of the waffle you posted before... here is some further reading for you on the ordovician period... and maybe you can see some of the contradictions to your sources account of what happened... and maybe you will even start to see the difference between theory and fact... but I doubt that very much...!

Paleoclimate

Numerical climate models as well as carbon isotope measurements from preserved Ordovician soils suggest that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide during the period were 14–16 times higher than today. These high levels were driven by widespread volcanic activity, which would have released large volumes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The extensive flooding of continents due to high sea levels, combined with the lack of widespread vegetation on land, would have suppressed the weathering of silicate rocks, a major mechanism for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In short, the rate at which carbon dioxide was added to the atmosphere increased during the Ordovician Period, whereas its rate of removal decreased.

Because of the greenhouse effect, high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide would have caused temperatures to rise everywhere from the Equator to the poles. Clear evidence of warm temperatures in the tropics can be seen in the extensive Ordovician limestone deposits with features similar to those found in modern tropical carbonate areas, such as the coral reefs of the Bahamas. Other evidence suggesting warm low-latitude climates in the Ordovician include bauxite deposits in Kazakhstan and evaporite minerals in North America, Australia, China, Kazakhstan, and Siberia.

Warm tropical regions would have fostered the development of tropical cyclones; there is a rich record of such storms in the Ordovician. In subtropical areas of North America, sedimentary deposits from Ordovician continental shelves commonly occur in alternating beds of shale and either sandstone or limestone. These sandstone and limestone beds display evidence of erosion at their bases, become finer-grained upward within the beds, and contain distinctive sedimentary structures known to form from the combination of strong currents and large waves. These storm-driven structures and processes also occur on the continental shelves of the present day. In addition, storm deposits known as tempestites can be quite common in Ordovician rocks. For example, an interval of Late Ordovician strata near Cincinnati, Ohio, is 65 metres (213 feet) thick. This interval represents an estimated 1.5 million years of deposition and contains over 300 tempestites. Because the erosion of the seafloor during the early phases of a hurricane has the potential to remove previously deposited tempestites, the interval near Cincinnati suggests that storms left a preserved sedimentary record at least once every 5,000 years during the period.

Despite high carbon dioxide levels in the Ordovician Period, evidence of cooler climates in higher latitudes is seen by the presence of unweathered mica in sedimentary rocks from North Africa, central and southern Europe, and much of South America. Their abundance, coupled with the presence of faunas interpreted as cold-water forms, as well as paleomagnetic evidence, suggests that northwestern Africa was located over the South Pole. Furthermore, glacial deposits dating back to the Ordovician are also known from much of Africa, southern Asia, and parts of Europe. It had been thought the South Pole was glaciated for much of the Ordovician, but more-recent dating of these glacial deposits, plus isotopic evidence, suggests that major continental glaciation was limited to the last half-million years of the Late Ordovician Epoch and a shorter portion of the Early Silurian Epoch.

How continental glaciation could have formed when carbon dioxide levels were so high has been a paradox. Recently it has been proposed that the terminal Ordovician glaciation was triggered through a combination of the placement of Africa over the South Pole and a short-lived drawdown of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This drawdown was favoured by declining volcanism during the Ordovician, which would have introduced progressively less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Increasing orogeny and uplift during later Ordovician times would have accelerated the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through the weathering of silicate rocks. Once snow began to accumulate in North Africa, the increased albedo (surface reflectance) of the snow would have fostered lower temperatures and increased the accumulation of greater amounts of snow in Gondwana, thereby bringing about a glacial period. The cooling of the oceans may also have fostered the increased productivity of photosynthetic organisms, moving nutrients from the depths to the surface through the process of upwelling. As the populations of photosynthesizers increased, additional carbon dioxide was removed from the atmosphere. At the end of this glacial period, it is now believed, as the production of carbon dioxide from volcanoes continued, the proportion of atmospheric carbon dioxide removal due to the weathering of silicate rocks declined. The silicate rocks of Gondwana had no access to the atmosphere, because many were covered by thick layers of glacial ice.

https://www.britannica.com/science/Ordovician-Period

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell

Tommy Monk

Posts : 22955
Join date : 2014-02-12

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Thorin wrote:
Most amusing that again clearly Tommy cannot see his error, which is why he cannot understand science and why humans are responsible for the change in climate change

He still cannot understand CO'2 levels and what causes them

No scientist denies high levels in the past but have easily explained them, but poor Tommy cannot firgure his out

One moment

Priceless

PMSL

What has that period got to do with today's human pollution and cause of global warming Tommy?

I am proving you have no understanding of science

What you have done repeatedly is use misdirection and failed to disprove humans being responsible for today's global warming

One things is clear, you know nothing about science and then use britannica

## What the science says...

 Select a level... Basic Intermediate The Ordovician glaciation was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions. It is completely consistent with climate science.

## Climate Myth...

CO2 was higher in the past
"The killer proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the IPCC theory is correct there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation."
(The Lavoisier Group)

Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.

Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:

"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."

On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low?

To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.

Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."

What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine  biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A  period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.

Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.

In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions.

The following (somewhat simplified) diagram may make this easier to understand:

When looking at events such as these from the deep geological past, it is vital to keep in mind that there are many uncertainties, and generally speaking, the further back we look, the more there are. As our paleo techniques improve and other discoveries emerge this story will no doubt be refined. Also, although CO2 is a key factor in controlling the climate, it would be a mistake to think it's the only factor; ignore the other elements and you'll most likely get the story wrong.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

Guest
Guest

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

nicko wrote:I hardly consider he's"ranting" Wolf,   he's just putting his opinions forward.

it is not something that OPINON MATTER
It Science it has CORRECT ANSWERS
which tommys are not.
It is not a popularity poll, general consensus is Not important
it doesn't matter what his opinion is
HE IS WRONG

he can thin 1+1= 8 (cause that is how wrong he is)
it doesn't make it TRUE or correct and If you try and build something with his maths You are going to be fucked up.
OPINONS do not make planes fly or Skyscrapers stand

_________________
My job is to travel the world delivering Chaos and Candy.

We don't know the Questions... does that means we cannot seek the Answers?

veya_victaous
The Mod Loki, Minister of Chaos & Candy, Emperor of the Southern Realms, Captain Kangaroo

Posts : 19095
Join date : 2013-01-23
Age : 36
Location : Australia

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

I didn't want a lecture, I just said, in my opinion Tommy is not "ranting" as you put it, if any ones ranting it's yourself and others, if Tommy's wrong, and to be honest, I don't really know, it's no excuse to keep insulting him. Just put up the opinions of yourself in a calm and reasonable manner.

nicko

Posts : 12190
Join date : 2013-12-07
Age : 78
Location : rainbow bridge

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

nicko wrote:I didn't want a lecture,    I just said,   in my opinion Tommy is not "ranting" as you put it,   if any ones ranting it's yourself and others, if Tommy's wrong, and to be honest, I don't really know, it's no excuse to keep insulting him.   Just put up the opinions of yourself in a calm and reasonable manner.

There is no need to insult, but its very frustrating, when Tommy is either deliberately ignoring the evidence or simply is being rather ignorant of the science Nicko. He is not countering any of the evidence but again constantly using misdirection. Constantly ignoring the evidence from today of human causing global warming.
All he does is ignore the evidence and spam the same repeated poor mantra in the desperate hope, that by continuing to annoy people, of which he is trying to do. That he will wear them down. Now I am drumming home the evidence refuting him and can play the same tactic of wearing him down

Guest
Guest

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

What are you wittering on about dodge...!!!???

You don't have the faintest idea about any of that wall of waffle you posted... do you...!!!???

Why are you posting limited/selective theory about the ordovician period as undisputed fact...?

And what has any of that got to do with the almost indisputable ice core data that I posted about the last few thousand years... and which have showed most of the last 8000 years being warmer than now and with considerably lower co2 levels than now...!?

The evidence in the ice core graph I posted shows that for most of the last 8000 years was warmer than now and with lower co2 levels... the graphs also show long colder periods with the same levels of co2 as the warmer times...

So the evidence clearly shows that there is a different cause to what the warmth of the planet is... and that is obviously much more likely going to be the sun!!!

You brought up ice core data... I'm showing you the facts/evidence... why are you denying the truth...!!!???

And veya... you are confusing science fiction/theory as science fact...!

Last edited by Tommy Monk on Fri Jan 13, 2017 2:07 pm; edited 2 times in total

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell

Tommy Monk

Posts : 22955
Join date : 2014-02-12

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Thorin wrote:
Thorin wrote:
Most amusing that again clearly Tommy cannot see his error, which is why he cannot understand science and why humans are responsible for the change in climate change

He still cannot understand CO'2 levels and what causes them

No scientist denies high levels in the past but have easily explained them, but poor Tommy cannot firgure his out

One moment

Priceless

PMSL

What has that period got to do with today's human pollution and cause of global warming Tommy?

I am proving you have no understanding of science

What you have done repeatedly is use misdirection and failed to disprove humans being responsible for today's global warming

One things is clear, you know nothing about science and then use britannica

## What the science says...

 Select a level... Basic Intermediate The Ordovician glaciation was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions. It is completely consistent with climate science.

## Climate Myth...

CO2 was higher in the past
"The killer proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the Ordovician- Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the IPCC theory is correct there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation."
(The Lavoisier Group)

Geologists refer to ancient ice-cap formations and ice-ages as "glaciations." One such glaciation that occurred during the Late Ordovician era, some 444 million years ago has captured the attention of climate scientists and skeptics alike. To get some perspective on timing, that's just over 200 million years before dinosaurs began to roam the Earth.

Unlike other glaciations in the last 500 million years, this one was exceptionally brief (lasting perhaps only a million years or so) but the main reason for generating so much interest recently is because it took place when CO2 levels were apparently sky-high. As Ian Plimer notes in his book, "Heaven and Earth", pp165:

"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations...If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2."

On the surface, Plimer does seem to have a point: if ice-caps managed to exist back then in an ultra-high CO2 environment, why are the vast majority of climate scientists worrying so much about keeping CO2 levels piddlingly low?

To answer this, we have to fill in some parts of the puzzle that are missing. Let's start with the CO2.

Plimer's stated value of 4000 ppmv or greater is taken from Robert Berner's GEOCARB, a well-known geochemical model of ancient CO2. As the Ordovician was so long ago, there are huge uncertainties for that time period (according to the model, CO2 was between an incredible 2400 and 9000 ppmv.) Crucially, GEOCARB has a 10 million year timestep, leading Berner to explicitly advise against using his model to estimate Late Ordovician CO2levels due its inability to account for short-term CO2 fluctuations. He noted that "exact values of CO2... should not be taken literally."

What about evidence for any of these short-term CO2 fluctuations? Recent research has uncovered evidence for lower ocean temperatures during the Ordovician than previously thought, creating ideal conditions for a huge spurt in marine  biodiversity and correspondingly large drawdown of CO2 from the atmosphere through carbon burial in the ocean. A  period of mountain-building was also underway (the so-called Taconic orogeny) increasing the amount of rock weathering taking place and subsequently lowering CO2levels even further. The evidence is definitely there for a short-term disruption of the carbon cycle.

Another important factor is the sun. During the Ordovician, it would have been several percent dimmer according to established nuclear models of main sequence stars. Surprisingly, this raises the CO2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv or so. This also explains (along with the logarithmic forcing effect of CO2) why a runaway greenhouse didn't occur: with a dimmer sun, high CO2 is necessary to stop the Earth freezing over.

In summary, we know CO2 was probably very high coming into the Late Ordovician period, however the subsequent dip in CO2 was brief enough not to register in the GEOCARB model, yet low enough (with the help of a dimmer sun) to trigger permanent ice-formation. Effectively it was a brief excursion to coldness during an otherwise warm era, due to a coincidence of conditions.

The following (somewhat simplified) diagram may make this easier to understand:

When looking at events such as these from the deep geological past, it is vital to keep in mind that there are many uncertainties, and generally speaking, the further back we look, the more there are. As our paleo techniques improve and other discoveries emerge this story will no doubt be refined. Also, although CO2 is a key factor in controlling the climate, it would be a mistake to think it's the only factor; ignore the other elements and you'll most likely get the story wrong.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm

And there you have it Tommy clearly is that uneducated to understand science

I provided the evidence to rubbish his claim and he fails to understand the science

There is little point trying to educate someone with the intellect of a 4 year old

Here again is the evidence he ignored

Guest
Guest

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Dodge... why are you waffling about speculation on a period of time 450 million years ago...!?

You do realise that the theory also includes the idea that the land mass had moved over the South Pole because of shifting tectonuc plates during that time of glaciation too don't you...!?

I showed a graph of I've core data for the last few thousand years... that clearly shows most of the last 8000 years was warmer than today but with lower co2 levels...!!!

Why are you ignoring this much more accurate recent data...!?

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell

Tommy Monk

Posts : 22955
Join date : 2014-02-12

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

has anyone noticed every time I easily refute Tommys claims, he comes up with even more misdirection and fanciful claims?

That is desperation

lol

Guest
Guest

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Tommy Monk wrote:

Dodge... why are you waffling about speculation on a period of time 450 million years ago...!?

You do realise that the theory also includes the idea that the land mass had moved over the South Pole because of shifting tectonuc plates during that time of glaciation too don't you...!?

I showed a graph of I've core data for the last few thousand years... that clearly shows most of the last 8000 years was warmer than today but with lower co2 levels...!!!

Why are you ignoring this much more accurate recent data...!?

Why can't you answer the questions and actually debate the topic/issue...!?

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell

Tommy Monk

Posts : 22955
Join date : 2014-02-12

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110325/full/news.2011.184.html

Another Tommy claim debunked

What else will he come up with?

More gibberish?

Guest
Guest

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate

CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.

Climate Myth...

CO2 lags temperature
"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)

Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that:
•The Earth's orbital cycles triggered warming in the Arctic approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water.
•This influx of fresh water then disrupted ocean current circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres.
•The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls. This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, releasing it into the atmosphere.

While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 2).

Shakun Fig 2a

Figure 2: Average global temperature (blue), Antarctic temperature (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots). Source.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Wonder what else unscientific tommy will plagiarize from climate denialist blogs, he refuses to put up links to for his poor claims?

lol

Guest
Guest

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Tommy Monk wrote:

Here's a graph of ice core data going back a few hundred thousands of years...

(Don't know how to resize it to fit... Either right click and select 'view image' to see full picture... or link below...)

And here's one just looking at the last 18000 years in greenland...

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/greenland.18kyr.gif

The ice core data is here for all to see!!!

And it is clear in graph 2 that over the last 8000 years it has been mostly warmer than now... and during this period there was lower co2 levels!!!

It was you dodge who brought up ice core data into this thread... now you seem to want to dismiss the evidence produced by the ice core data...!?

Why is that...?

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell

Tommy Monk

Posts : 22955
Join date : 2014-02-12

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Thorin wrote:
nicko wrote:I didn't want a lecture,    I just said,   in my opinion Tommy is not "ranting" as you put it,   if any ones ranting it's yourself and others, if Tommy's wrong, and to be honest, I don't really know, it's no excuse to keep insulting him.   Just put up the opinions of yourself in a calm and reasonable manner.

There is no need to insult, but its very frustrating, when Tommy is either deliberately ignoring the evidence or simply is being rather ignorant of the science Nicko. He is not countering any of the evidence but again constantly using misdirection. Constantly ignoring the evidence from today of human causing global warming.
All he does is ignore the evidence and spam the same repeated poor mantra in the desperate hope, that by continuing to annoy people, of which he is trying to do. That he will wear them down. Now I am drumming home the evidence refuting him and can play the same tactic of wearing him down

When I prove tommy easily wrong, he just spams again previous claims dunked

Its been funny watching him squirm so badly and even his white flag of loll's is not going to save him from looking so embarrassed

Guest
Guest

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Dodge... why are you waffling about speculation on a period of time 450 million years ago...!?

You do realise that the theory also includes the idea that the land mass had moved over the South Pole because of shifting tectonuc plates during that time of glaciation too don't you...!?

I showed a graph of ice core data for the last few thousand years... that clearly shows most of the last 8000 years was warmer than today but with lower co2 levels...!!!

Why are you ignoring this much more accurate recent data...!?

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell

Tommy Monk

Posts : 22955
Join date : 2014-02-12

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Thorin wrote:Notice how Tommy provides no link again

Here is what Naza shows and can people see what Tommy has done lol

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

Where Tommy is getting his one Naza measurement

## What the science says...

 Select a level... Basic Intermediate Advanced The most recent satellite data show that the earth as a whole is warming.

## Climate Myth...

Satellites show no warming in the troposphere
"Satellite measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979, the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis - a test that the hypothesis fails." ([url=http://web.archive.org/web/20080719030643/http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc/RMC on warming - for Telegraph 05-04 ZZ.pdf]Bob Carter[/url])

John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated Spencer and Christy (1992). One early version of their data even showed a cooling trend (Christy et al. 1995).
Several groups of scientists began looking closely at this discrepancy. With so many other pieces of evidence indicating warming, it seemed unlikely that the troposphere would not be warming. Errors were discovered in the methods the UAH group used to adjust the data.
To understand what was wrong: The satellites must pass over the same spot on Earth at the same time each day to get a temperature average. In reality the time the satellite passes drifts slightly as the orbit slowly decays. To compensate for this and other orbital changes a series of adjustments must be applied to the data.

The MSU satellite data is collected from a number of satellites orbiting & providing daily coverage of some 80% of the Earth's surface. Each day the orbits shift and 100% coverage is achieved every 3-4 days. The microwave sensors on the satellites do not directly measure temperature, but rather radiation given off by oxygen in the Earth's atmosphere. The intensity of this radiation is directly proportional to the temperature of the air and is therefore used to estimate global temperatures.
There are also differences between the sensors that were onboard each satellite and merging this data to one continuous record is not easily done. It was nearly 13 years after the orginal papers that the adjustments that Christy and Spencer originally applied were found to be incorrect. Mears et al. (2003) and Mears et al. (2005).
When the correct adjustments to the data were applied the data matched much more closely the trends expected by climate models. It was also more consistent with the historical record of troposphere temperatures obtained from weather balloons. As better methods to adjust for biases in instruments and orbital changes have been developed, the differences between the surface temperature record and the troposphere have steadily decreased.
At least two other groups keep track of the tropospheric temperature using satellites and they all now show warming in the troposphere that is consistent with the surface temperature record. Furthermore data also shows now that the stratosphere is cooling as predicted by the physics.
All three groups measuring temperatures of the troposphere show a warming trend. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program produced a study (pdf) in April 2006 on this topic. Lead authors included John Christy of UAH and Ben Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Labs. The first page has this quote:
Previously reported discrepancies between the amount of warming near the surface and higher in the atmosphere have been used to challenge the reliability of climate models and the reality of human-induced global warming... This significant discrepancy no longer exists because errors in the satellite and radiosonde data have been identified and corrected. New data sets have also been developed that do not show such discrepancies."
There are still some discrepancies between satellite measured temperatures in the tropics and those measured by radiosondes. Most researchers believe this difference is likely due to instrument errors.
The original discrepancy is an excellent example of how science works and of critical thinking. With many different indicators showing warming, it did not make sense that the troposphere would be cooling. This discrepancy was taken very seriously by the scientific community, and the consistency and accuracy of all relevant data were examined intensely.
Science advances by trial and error. The result is an increased knowledge of how to measure the temperature of the troposphere from space.

## What the science says...

Satellites don't measure temperatures, and the uncertainty in the trend is five times as large as that in the global surface temperature record.

## Climate Myth...

Satellite record is more reliable than thermometers
"The satellite data are the best data we have."
Ted Cruz

Satellites don't measure temperature.  As Carl Mears of the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) satellite dataset and Ben Santer wrote,
they are not thermometers in space. The satellite [temperature] data ... were obtained from so-called Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs), which measure the microwave emissions of oxygen molecules from broad atmospheric layers. Converting this information to estimates of temperature trends has substantial uncertainties.
Scientists process the MSU data, applying a model to make numerous adjustments, in order to come up with a synthetic estimate of the atmospheric temperature.
As Andrew Dessler describes in the video below by Peter Sinclair, MSUs and advanced MSUs (AMSUs) measure voltages on detectors, which themselves are detecting microwave signals emitted by oxygen molecules in the Earth's atmosphere that change proportionally to temperature changes.  To translate these microwave detections into estimates of the temperature of various layers of the Earth's atmosphere requires a model and a lot of data processing and adjustments.

### Satellite Temperature Record Challenges

Converting those MSU microwave detections into a reliable long-term synthetic atmospheric temperature record is a challenging proposition, made all the more difficult by a number of confounding factors.  For example, the satellites themselves have a limited life span.  The overall satellite MSU record is comprised of data from numerous satellites, and each has a different calibration, orbit, etc. that must be accounted for.  During that life span, the satellites also experience friction, which causes their orbits to drift.  If not correctly taken into account, these factors can create a bias in the synthetic temperature record.
Another issue is that the MSU detections can be influenced by factors besides just oxygen microwave signals, for example, cloud liquid water.  Weng et al. (2014) found that the MSUchannel (Channel 3) that focuses on the lowest level of the atmosphere (the lower troposphere) is most influenced by the presence of cloud liquid water.  Weng et al. suggest,
the global mean temperature in the low and middle troposphere has a larger warming rate (about 20–30% higher) when the cloud-affected radiances are removed from AMSU-A data.
Roy Spencer who, with John Christy, runs the University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) satellite synthetic temperature dataset disagrees, believing that the cloud-caused bias is insignificant.  The magnitude of this bias in the satellite data remains an unresolved question.
Another issue related to changes in the satellites' orbits is called 'diurnal drift'.  The satellites are in 'sun synchronous orbits' and are meant to stay aligned with the sun so that they always cross the equator at the same time.  If they don’t, then the normal daily temperature cycles below will start to add a false bias to the data.  The UAH team tried to get around this bias in version 5 of their dataset by attempting to use these satellites during periods when the diurnal drift is small, while other groups (RSS and NOAA) apply a correction based on the diurnal drift in a global climate model.  Po-Chedley et al. (2015) argue that the UAHmethod creates a cool bias in their dataset.
There are still further challenges, for example the fact that the increased greenhouse effectcools the stratosphere, which is the layer of the atmosphere above the troposphere.  If microwave measurements from the stratosphere bleed into estimates of tropospheric temperatures, that can also cause a cool bias in the trend.  The UAH dataset has required a number of significant adjustments since its inception to correct for these sorts of factors.
The figure below shows all the processing required to get from voltage measurements on an MSU sensor for the Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) group to an estimate of the temperature in the atmosphere.
Flowchart of the processing algorithm for the RSS satellite data, from Mears et al. (2011)
As a result, the uncertainty in the satellite data is larger than that in the surface temperature record, which is based on direct measurements by thermometers. In particular, estimated satellite trend observational uncertainty is five times greater.

[i]Uncertainty in the temperature satellite and surface temperature trends, estimated from the RSS and HadCRUT4 ensembles. The boxes show the mean and interquartile range of the trends on 1979-2012 in each ensemble. Whiskers indicate the 95% interval (2.5%-97.5%). Crosses indicate outliers. Created by Kevin Cowtan.[/i]
Kevin Cowtan summarizes,
on the basis of the best understanding of the record providers themselves, the surface temperature record appears to be the better source of trendinformation. The satellite record is valuable for its uniform geographical coverage and ability to measure different levels in the atmosphere, but it is not our best source of data concerning temperature change at the surface.

### Tropospheric temperature trend disagreements

The UAH and RSS groups aren't the only ones trying to estimate the temperature of the atmosphere.  We also have direct measurements made by temperature sensors on weather balloons, for example.  These are generally in good agreement with the MSU lower atmosphere temperature estimates, until recent years.  Since the turn of the century, the UAH and RSS datasets show little warming of lower tropospheric temperatures, while weather balloons show continued warming.  For example, Sherwood et al. (2015) concluded that the weather balloon data "contradicts suggestions that atmospheric warming has slowed in recent decades or that it has not kept up with that at the surface."
Similarly, a weather balloon dataset from NOAA called RATPAC shows a growing divergence from the satellite lower troposphere temperature estimates over the past several years.
RATPAC vs. RSS lower troposphere temperature estimates.  Figure created by Tamino.
There are also other groups besides UAH and RSS that have used the MSU data to create their own lower and mid-troposphere temperature estimates, and these different estimates show quite a lot of variation.  These groups are all using the same raw MSU and AMSUdata, and arrive at very different final estimates of atmospheric temperatures and trends.
As Carl Mears of RSS has said,
I consider [surface temperature datasets] to be more reliable than satellite datasets (they certainly agree with each other better than the various satellite datasets do!).

Tropical mid-troposphere temperature satellite trend estimates from different groups using different diurnal drift correction approaches. From Po-Chedley et al. (2014).

### What makes "the best" the best?

This particular myth deals with the claim that the satellite data are "the best data we have" for measuring global warming.  What's "best" is a subjective judgment call, but if the goal is to have greater certainty about the data and trends, the surface temperature record is "better" than the satellite data.
Additionally, only about 2% of the global energy imbalance goes into warming the atmosphere. Over 90% goes into warming the oceans, so if the goal is to best measure the overall warming of the Earth, ocean heat content data would be "the best" single source.
A visual depiction of how much global warming heat is going into the various components of the climate system for the period 1993 to 2003, calculated from IPCC AR4 5.2.2.3.
Another consideration is that humans live on the surface, not kilometers up in the atmosphere.  The surface temperature record measures temperature changes where we live, which is arguably the most relevant in terms of effects on human society.  By that standard, the surface temperature record would be "the best."
As Carl Mears of RSS noted toward the end of the video above, what we should really do, rather than trying to decide which piece of data is "best," is to consider all the data.  That includes the temperature of the atmosphere, surface, and oceans, melting ice, rising oceans, shifting ecosystems, and so on.  These paint a clear picture of what's happening with the Earth's climate – it's warming and changing fast.
Global heat content data, from Nuccitelli et al. (2012).
The distinguishing feature of the satellite data is that it shows relatively little warming of the lower atmosphere in recent years.  But given the fact that all other related datasets disagree, and given the large uncertainties in the satellite data, that may be more of a bug than an accurate feature.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Satellite-record-vs-thermometers.htm

Does tommy understand science?
One moment

It really shows Tommy does not read any replies and that he has so badly regurgitated the same false claims

I will continue to make him look a complete mug, whilst at the same time not engage talking to him, until he does read the science

This way its great fun for me and the rest of the forum

Guest
Guest

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Dodge... why are you spamming a wall of waffle about satellite data now...!?

Nobody is denying that the temperature has risen slightly over the last 100 years or so...

Please address the points being raised instead of trying to prove a temperature rise that is not in dispute...!

Look again...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Here's a graph of ice core data going back a few hundred thousands of years...

(Don't know how to resize it to fit... Either right click and select 'view image' to see full picture... or link below...)

And here's one just looking at the last 18000 years in greenland...

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/greenland.18kyr.gif

The ice core data is here for all to see!!!

And it is clear in graph 2 that over the last 8000 years it has been mostly warmer than now... and during this period there was lower co2 levels!!!

It was you dodge who brought up ice core data into this thread... now you seem to want to dismiss the evidence produced by the ice core data...!?

Why is that...?

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell

Tommy Monk

Posts : 22955
Join date : 2014-02-12

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Didge wrote:CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate

CO2 didn't initiate warming from past ice ages but it did amplify the warming. In fact, about 90% of the global warming followed the CO2 increase.

Climate Myth...

CO2 lags temperature
"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)

Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterised by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, based on Antarctic ice core data, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years, as illustrated in Figure 1 below. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming.

Figure 1: Vostok ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration and temperature change.

This statement does not tell the whole story. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

A 2012 study by Shakun et al. looked at temperature changes 20,000 years ago (the last glacial-interglacial transition) from around the world and added more detail to our understanding of the CO2-temperature change relationship. They found that:
•The Earth's orbital cycles triggered warming in the Arctic approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water.
•This influx of fresh water then disrupted ocean current circulation, in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres.
•The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls. This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, releasing it into the atmosphere.

While the orbital cycles triggered the initial warming, overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occured after that atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 2).

Shakun Fig 2a

Figure 2: Average global temperature (blue), Antarctic temperature (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots). Source.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

Wonder what else unscientific tommy will plagiarize from climate denialist blogs, he refuses to put up links to for his poor claims?

lol

Again he ignores the science and just plagiarizes what he copied from a deniers blog

Most amusing

Guest
Guest

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Oh dear... it appears dodge is broken... as he has become unable of actually answering the points/questions raised and has become stuck in a culyckd of damming irrelevant walls of waffle from elsewhere...!

Most amusing!!

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell

Tommy Monk

Posts : 22955
Join date : 2014-02-12

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

So still nothing to refute the science

Just yet more deflections.

Priceless

This proves Tommy does not understand science or read the actual science itself

Guest
Guest

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Nobody is denying that the temperature has risen slightly over the last 100 years or so...

Please address the points being raised instead of trying to prove a temperature rise that is not in dispute...!

Look again...

Tommy Monk wrote:

Here's a graph of ice core data going back a few hundred thousands of years...

(Don't know how to resize it to fit... Either right click and select 'view image' to see full picture... or link below...)

And here's one just looking at the last 18000 years in greenland...

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/greenland.18kyr.gif

The ice core data is here for all to see!!!

And it is clear in graph 2 that over the last 8000 years it has been mostly warmer than now... and during this period there was lower co2 levels!!!

It was you dodge who brought up ice core data into this thread... now you seem to want to dismiss the evidence produced by the ice core data...!?

Why is that...?

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell

Tommy Monk

Posts : 22955
Join date : 2014-02-12

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate

Greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. This time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions.

Climate Myth... wrote:

Climate's changed before
Climate is always changing. We have had ice ages and warmer periods when alligators were found in Spitzbergen. Ice ages have occurred in a hundred thousand year cycle for the last 700 thousand years, and there have been previous periods that appear to have been warmer than the present despite CO2 levels being lower than they are now. More recently, we have had the medieval warm period and the little ice age. (Richard Lindzen)

Greenhouse gasses – mainly CO2, but also methane – were involved in most of the climate changes in Earth’s past. When they were reduced, the global climate became colder. When they were increased, the global climate became warmer. When CO2 levels jumped rapidly, the global warming that resulted was highly disruptive and sometimes caused mass extinctions. Humans today are emitting prodigious quantities of CO2, at a rate faster than even the most destructive climate changes in earth's past.

Abrupt vs slow change.

Life flourished in the Eocene, the Cretaceous and other times of high CO2 in the atmosphere because the greenhouse gasses were in balance with the carbon in the oceans and the weathering of rocks. Life, ocean chemistry, and atmospheric gasses had millions of years to adjust to those levels.

Lush Eocene Arctic 50 million years ago

Lush life in the Arctic during the Eocene, 50 million years ago (original art - Stephen C. Quinn, The American Museum of Natural History, N.Y.C)

But there have been several times in Earth’s past when Earth's temperature jumped abruptly, in much the same way as they are doing today. Those times were caused by large and rapid greenhouse gas emissions, just like humans are causing today.

Those abrupt global warming events were almost always highly destructive for life, causing mass extinctions such as at the end of the Permian, Triassic, or even mid-Cambrian periods. The symptoms from those events (a big, rapid jump in global temperatures, rising sea levels, and ocean acidification) are all happening today with human-caused climate change.

So yes, the climate has changed before humans, and in most cases scientists know why. In all cases we see the same association between CO2 levels and global temperatures. And past examples of rapid carbon emissions (just like today) were generally highly destructive to life on Earth.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period.htm

Guest
Guest

## Re: New Research Confirms That The “Global Warming Hiatus” Is a Myth

Dodge continues to spam this thread and continues to avoid answering any of the points/questions raised.

_________________
“Truth is ever to be found in the simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things.” — Isaac Newton

'The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.'  — George Orwell

Tommy Monk

Posts : 22955
Join date : 2014-02-12

Page 3 of 4   1, 2, 3, 4

Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum