Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 10081 - 10100 of total 17219 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

monolith

climber

SF bay area

Dec 24, 2013 - 11:43am PT

Thanks for the opportunity to debunk the 'pause', Sketch.

Much appreciated.

monolith

climber

SF bay area

Dec 24, 2013 - 11:44am PT

Already did.

monolith

climber

SF bay area

Dec 24, 2013 - 11:52am PT

It means you have to ignore about a decade's worth of warming to start the 'pause'

wilbeer

Mountain climber

honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys

Dec 24, 2013 - 11:55am PT

Comedy

monolith

climber

SF bay area

Dec 24, 2013 - 11:58am PT

Not at all, Sketch. The jump from the trend line happened in 97.

If you want, we can start the 'pause' in 2008.

monolith

climber

SF bay area

Dec 24, 2013 - 12:01pm PT

From a statistical point of view, I don't see a 'pause'.

monolith

climber

SF bay area

Dec 24, 2013 - 12:02pm PT

And no, we have not had a 'pause' in global warming.

monolith

climber

SF bay area

Dec 24, 2013 - 12:05pm PT

Enjoy your cherries.

monolith

climber

SF bay area

Dec 24, 2013 - 12:17pm PT

Each 'pause' higher than the last.

monolith

climber

SF bay area

Dec 24, 2013 - 12:20pm PT

And we don't buy the 'pause' either.

rick sumner

Trad climber

reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska

Dec 24, 2013 - 12:26pm PT

Yes your right Ed, we haven't had a pause, instead we should call it a phase change to a cooling climate. You are well aware of the change in Enso to a period of reduced El Ninos and more and/or longer La Ninas, the cool phase of the PDO, the AMO at plateau or decline, the lack of significant volcanic aerosols, the slowdown of the MOC, and most importantlty the change to a distinct quiet sun phase. Seems the oceans have given up the heat just to keep us in something resembing what you call the pause.

rick sumner

Trad climber

reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska

Dec 24, 2013 - 12:35pm PT

Don't those blogs just piss you off Ed? Wonderful resources with many serious scientists posting real climate science for public consumption. Im On a cell phone but somebody should repost the excellent article by Dr Gray.

monolith

climber

SF bay area

Dec 24, 2013 - 12:35pm PT

How come no trend lines Chief.

You want us to just eyeball it?

monolith

climber

SF bay area

Dec 24, 2013 - 12:39pm PT

Why no trend lines, Chief?

You afraid of trend lines?

wilbeer

Mountain climber

honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys

Dec 24, 2013 - 12:51pm PT

And before your alleged "pause",what was that a "pause" in your denial.

Ed might not say it ,but I WILL ,Yeah, you deniers piss me off.

Scotch-Irish,but mostly Scotch tonight.

monolith

climber

SF bay area

Dec 24, 2013 - 12:54pm PT

How come no trend lines leading up to the 'pause' Chief?

Are you afraid what they might reveal?

monolith

climber

SF bay area

Dec 24, 2013 - 01:00pm PT

Look where your trend line would intercept, Chief.

Chiloe

Trad climber

Lee, NH

Dec 24, 2013 - 05:08pm PT

New research published two days ago in Nature Geoscience (emphasis added).

Small influence of solar variability on climate over the past millennium
Schurer, Tett, Hegerl
The climate of the past millennium was marked by substantial decadal and centennial scale variability in the Northern Hemisphere1. Low solar activity has been linked to cooling during the Little Ice Age (AD 1450–1850; ref. 1) and there may have been solar forcing of regional warmth during the Medieval Climate Anomaly2, 3, 4, 5 (AD 950–1250; ref. 1). The amplitude of the associated changes is, however, poorly constrained5, 6, with estimates of solar forcing spanning almost an order of magnitude7, 8, 9. Numerical simulations tentatively indicate that a small amplitude best agrees with available temperature reconstructions10, 11, 12, 13. Here we compare the climatic fingerprints of high and low solar forcing derived from model simulations with an ensemble of surface air temperature reconstructions14 for the past millennium. Our methodology15 also accounts for internal climate variability and other external drivers such as volcanic eruptions, as well as uncertainties in the proxy reconstructions and model output. We find that neither a high magnitude of solar forcing nor a strong climate effect of that forcing agree with the temperature reconstructions. We instead conclude that solar forcing probably had a minor effect on Northern Hemisphere climate over the past 1,000 years, while, volcanic eruptions and changes in greenhouse gas concentrations seem to be the most important influence over this period.