Volcanoes and CO2

When the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.

There are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out greenhouse gases at any time – EVERY DAY.

 

now find a gas vulcanologist that will support that claim, back it up with evidence(no tabloids and watts don't count as authorities on anything), I'll wait...a very, very, long time...

Mt pinatubo emissions were a tiny fraction of man's yearly output, all the volcanic emissions combined come to 1/135 on man's emissions...

 

Can't help but notice that neither of you sourced your figures.

 

Pictures are nice, but numbers tell the story:

"Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value."

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

 

I have done so often and anders knows it but he continues to ignore it...as well since he made the initial assertion it's up to him to support it...

 

Yeah but then you made a counter-claim.

 

That may seem like a lot but it is in fact quite inconsequential when put in the context of natural emissions. For those interested here is a closer look at the numbers

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

 

On the contrary, anthropogenic emissions are very consequential. Natural CO2 emissions have been balanced out by natural CO2 sinks in a homeostatic process that has kept CO2 levels below 300ppm for millions of years. Now mankind's activities have increased CO2 levels by 43% over pre-industrial levels (280ppm to over 400ppm), reaching levels that haven't been seen on Earth for about 15 million years.

Last time carbon dioxide levels were this high: 15 million years ago, scientists report
UCLA Newsroom
By Stuart Wolpert
October 08, 2009
(excerpts)
You would have to go back at least 15 million years to find carbon dioxide levels on Earth as high as they are today, a UCLA scientist and colleagues report Oct. 8 in the online edition of the journal Science. "The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today, there was no permanent sea ice cap in the Arctic and very little ice on Antarctica and Greenland," said the paper's lead author, Aradhna Tripati, a UCLA assistant professor in the department of Earth and space sciences and the department of atmospheric and oceanic sciences. "Carbon dioxide is a potent greenhouse gas, and geological observations that we now have for the last 20 million years lend strong support to the idea that carbon dioxide is an important agent for driving climate change throughout Earth's history," she said.

Levels of carbon dioxide have varied only between 180 and 300 parts per million over the last 800,000 years — until recent decades, said Tripati, who is also a member of UCLA's Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics. It has been known that modern-day levels of carbon dioxide are unprecedented over the last 800,000 years, but the finding that modern levels have not been reached in the last 15 million years is new. Prior to the Industrial Revolution of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the carbon dioxide level was about 280 parts per million, Tripati said. That figure had changed very little over the previous 1,000 years. But since the Industrial Revolution, the carbon dioxide level has been rising and is likely to soar unless action is taken to reverse the trend, Tripati said. "During the Middle Miocene (the time period approximately 14 to 20 million years ago), carbon dioxide levels were sustained at about 400 parts per million, which is about where we are today," Tripati said. "Globally, temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, a huge amount."

 

What the CO 2 levels are doing is inconsequential its what the temperatures are doing that matter. Current temperatures are unremarkable and well within natural post glaciation variation in both level and rate of change when put in some kind of proper historical context . This is something that should not be the case were the current CO2 based AGW hypothesis a valid one.

http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm

Even over the short term the hypothesis is facing problems as the warming has stopped and may even reverse despite accelerating emissions over the last 15 years

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/ha.../uah/from:2004.75/plot/uah/from:2004.75/trend

PS, I'm having a lot of trouble reading your font could you perhaps make a bit bigger next time ?

 

More ignorant denier cult nonsense. Enormous amounts of clear evidence show conclusively that "what the CO2 levels are doing" is very consequential and significant. Moreover temperatures of the air, land and oceans are still rising. Recently surface air temperatures rose a little slower and ocean temperatures rose a little faster as a result of temporary variations in some natural processes but this has no bearing on the basic fact that the whole Earth is continuing to get hotter as anthropogenic CO2 emissions continue to accumulate in the atmosphere. Here's some recent "historical context".



While average global temperature will still fluctuate from year to year, scientists focus on the decadal trend. Nine of the 10 warmest years since 1880 have occurred since the year 2000, as the Earth has experienced sustained higher temperatures than in any decade during the 20th century. As greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, scientists expect the long-term temperature increase to continue as well. (Data source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory, Robert Simmon)(source: NASA)

Your denier cult myths about this have been debunked many times. Why do you keep repeating them as if you weren't aware of that fact? The "proper historical context" is that global temperatures were in a slow, long term decline, since the Holocene Thermal Maximum about 5000 years ago, until rising CO2 levels after the industrial revolution reversed that trend.

Global Temperatures Highest in 4,000 Years
The New York Times
By JUSTIN GILLIS
March 7, 2013
(excerpts)
Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years, scientists reported Thursday, and over the coming decades are likely to surpass levels not seen on the planet since before the last ice age. Previous research had extended back roughly 1,500 years, and suggested that the rapid temperature spike of the past century, believed to be a consequence of human activity, exceeded any warming episode during those years. The new work confirms that result while suggesting the modern warming is unique over a longer period. In the new research, scheduled for publication on Friday in the journal Science, Shaun Marcott, an earth scientist at Oregon State University, and his colleagues compiled the most meticulous reconstruction yet of global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, virtually the entire Holocene. They used indicators like the distribution of microscopic, temperature-sensitive ocean creatures to determine past climate.

Though the paper is the most complete reconstruction of global temperature, it is roughly consistent with previous work on a regional scale. It suggests that changes in the amount and distribution of incoming sunlight, caused by wobbles in the earth’s orbit, contributed to a sharp temperature rise in the early Holocene. The climate then stabilized at relatively warm temperatures about 10,000 years ago, hitting a plateau that lasted for roughly 5,000 years, the paper shows. After that, shifts of incoming sunshine prompted a long, slow cooling trend. The cooling was interrupted, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, by a fairly brief spike during the Middle Ages, known as the Medieval Warm Period. (It was then that the Vikings settled Greenland, dying out there when the climate cooled again.) Scientists say that if natural factors were still governing the climate, the Northern Hemisphere would probably be destined to freeze over again in several thousand years. “We were on this downward slope, presumably going back toward another ice age,” Dr. Marcott said. Instead, scientists believe the enormous increase in greenhouse gases caused by industrialization will almost certainly prevent that.

 

Off to your usual start then

.

Nonsense . Were the hypothesis valid we would now be seeing the highest temperatures yet seen over the post glacial era and (as you were shown) We are nowhere near that. Sorry you dont like em but thems the facts.

Not according to the satellites and thermometers as you were also shown

Please link the empirical science showing that an extra 0.012% atmospheric volume of CO 2 is capable of doing so

[

Yes temperatures have risen since 1880 and that has never been in dispute. The cause of the rise has though. As you were shown such rises and falls are fairly typical since the last glaciation. You have to look at the paleoclimatic record over that period to put todays phase into its proper historical perspective. I do realise you would prefer not to do so for reasons other than scientific objectivity here

What on Earth are those ?

.

Sorry but that is not what the Peer reviewed science is actually saying

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2011GL049444.pdf



And there are plenty of other such studies fully corroborate that too

http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php

http://pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod.html

Ergo todays conditions are nothing special according to the great bulk of paleaoclimatic reconstructions taken from all over the world !

To quote the author of your study Dr Marcott

The 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.

Nuff said. This is too easy !

 

True, it would not even be noticeable were we not simultaneously interfering with natural carbon sinks by deforestation, desertification, etc.

 

Yeah, by responding to your usual collection of denier cult pseudo-science and misinformation by labeling it correctly. Just more of your usual anti-science BS.

Nope, "thems" not "the facts", "thems" just the usual factually incorrect BS denier cult myths you always spew. After the end of the last glacial period, around ten or eleven thousand years ago, temperatures continued to rise for a while during a period called the Holocene Thermal Maximum, reaching levels as warm or slightly warmer than the twentieth century levels, but then, about five thousand years ago or so, they started to slowly decline due to orbital forcing. With only small variations, mostly regional, that decline lasted until CO2 levels began to really increase after the industrial revolution. Now the world is experiencing a larger temperature change over just one century than it experienced over the preceding fifty centuries. The validity of the conclusions of the climate scientists is not dependent on current temperatures exceeding temperatures during the HTM for many reasons but specifically in this case because those warmer temperatures were being driven by the same orbital climate forcing that ended the period of glaciation. The orbital and axial tilt climate forcings for the last five thousand years have been towards lower temperatures. The only scientifically supportably climate forcing that can explain the reversal of that declining temperature trend and its replacement with the current very abrupt trend towards rapidly increasing temperatures is the rapidly increasing CO2 levels produced by mankind's activities.

All you've shown are the usual denier cult graphs that start in the very cherry-picked year of 1998. You have shown nothing about the evidence for increased ocean temperatures and the melting ice. The real climate scientists don't agree with your denier cult myths on this point at all.
"What is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.” - UK Met Office

You keep repeating your mistaken assumption/denier cult myth that the volume of gases (mostly N2 and O2) in the atmosphere that are transparent to the longwave infrared radiation the Earth emits have anything to do with the greenhouse effect. They don't, so your percentage figures are meaningless. It is the 43% increase in CO2 levels and the increase in other persistent greenhouse gases that are significant and directly linked to the current abrupt warming trend.

The cause of the rapidly rising temperatures is not at all "in dispute" in the world scientific community. Scientists, and particularly climate scientists, are very clear at this point that it is the rapidly increasing levels of CO2 that are causing the warming. It is only among the bewildered dupes of the fossil fuel industry propaganda campaign that anyone still imagines that "the cause" of the current warming trend is "in dispute'.

The Earth has been in a period of declining temperatures, driven by orbital and axial tilt changes for the last 5000 years. There is nothing "fairly typical" about the Earth increasing its temperature in just a century or so by as much as it declined in the preceding 50 centuries. Your denier cult myths are really ridiculous.

You have to be pretty confused and/or misled about the meaning of the paleoclimate record to make the ridiculously mistaken claims about it that you do. I do realize that your misinterpretations are driven by your politics and have nothing to do with scientific objectivity. Too bad you're still confused about that point.

Pretty much everything you post on this sub-forum.



.

Oh but it is indeed what the peer-reviewed science is saying. The paper you're citing here is good science but it is only talking about the temperature variations on top of the mile high ice sheet covering Greenland, not variations in global temperatures or sea level temperatures. Those denier cult blogs duped you again.

The nonsense and pseudo-science you dredge up on your denier cult blogs are not real peer-reviewed scientific studies but they are all you can find to support your fraudulent BS.

Both of these are from "CO2 Science", which is a deceptively titled project of the 'crazy Idso's'. Consistently bad science and strong financial ties to Exxon, Western Fuels Association and various foundations set up by far rightwing oil billionaires. You've got to be kidding.

That may seem true from somewhere deep inside the denier cult echo chamber but in the real world, it is just pseudo-scientific nonsense with no connection to reality.

Cherry-picked, isolated quotes with no link to the source are very "easy" but not particularly helpful to your position except among the other equally clueless denier cultists. Especially when it is obvious that you don't understand what he is saying. The "paleotemperature" proxies used in the study of the entire Holocene period are inferior to the actual instrumental temperature records for the 20th century so they aren't part of the basis for their conclusions. The paper itself is very clear about those conclusions. Here's the editor's summary from the Science journal's website on this paper.

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

EDITORS SUMMARY
The climate has been warming since the industrial revolution, but how warm is climate now compared with the rest of the Holocene? Marcott et al. (p. 1198 ) constructed a record of global mean surface temperature for more than the last 11,000 years, using a variety of land- and marine-based proxy data from all around the world. The pattern of temperatures shows a rise as the world emerged from the last deglaciation, warm conditions until the middle of the Holocene, and a cooling trend over the next 5000 years that culminated around 200 years ago in the Little Ice Age. Temperatures have risen steadily since then, leaving us now with a global temperature higher than those during 90% of the entire Holocene.

 

Here is further confirmation of Dr. Marcott's results from a previous study of the Arctic.

ARCTIC WARMING OVERTAKES 2,000 YEARS OF NATURAL COOLING
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
September 03, 2009
(Terms of Use - Throughout the Site you may access images, information, documents, software, data, models and services (collectively, the "Materials") developed at UCAR or provided by other Site users ("Contributors"). The user is granted the right to use the Site for non-commercial, non-profit research, or educational purposes only, without any fee or cost.)

BOULDER—Arctic temperatures in the 1990s reached their warmest level of any decade in at least 2,000 years, new research indicates. The study, which incorporates geologic records and computer simulations, provides new evidence that the Arctic would be cooling if not for greenhouse gas emissions that are overpowering natural climate patterns.

The international study, led by Northern Arizona University and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), will be published in the September 4 edition of Science. It was primarily funded by the National Science Foundation, NCAR's sponsor.

The scientists reconstructed summer temperatures across the Arctic over the last 2,000 years by decade, extending a view of climate far beyond the 400 years of Arctic-wide records previously available at that level of detail. They found that thousands of years of gradual Arctic cooling, related to natural changes in Earth's orbit, would continue today if not for emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.


New research shows that the Arctic reversed a long-term cooling trend and began warming rapidly in recent decades. The blue line shows estimates of Arctic temperatures over the last 2,000 years, based on proxy records from lake sediments, ice cores and tree rings. The green line shows the long-term cooling trend. The red line shows the recent warming based on actual observations. A 2000-year transient climate simulation with NCAR?s Community Climate System Model shows the same overall temperature decrease as does the proxy temperature reconstruction, which gives scientists confidence that their estimates are accurate. (Courtesy Science, modified by UCAR.)

"This result is particularly important because the Arctic, perhaps more than any other region on Earth, is facing dramatic impacts from climate change," says NCAR scientist David Schneider, one of the co-authors. "This study provides us with a long-term record that reveals how greenhouse gases from human activities are overwhelming the Arctic's natural climate system."

Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University, the lead author and head of the synthesis project, says the results indicate that recent warming is more anomalous than previously documented.

"Scientists have known for a while that the current period of warming was preceded by a long-term cooling trend," says Kaufman. "But our reconstruction quantifies the cooling with greater certainty than before."

GREENHOUSE GASES OVERTAKE A NATURAL CYCLE

The new study is the first to quantify a pervasive cooling across the Arctic on a decade-by-decade basis that is related to an approximately 21,000-year cyclical wobble in Earth's tilt relative to the Sun. Over the last 7,000 years, the timing of Earth's closest pass by the Sun has shifted from September to January. This has gradually reduced the intensity of sunlight reaching the Arctic in summertime, when Earth is farther from the Sun.

The research team's temperature analysis shows that summer temperatures in the Arctic, in step with the reduced energy from the Sun, cooled at an average rate of about 0.2 degrees Celsius (about .36 degrees Fahrenheit) per thousand years. The temperatures eventually bottomed out during the "Little Ice Age," a period of widespread cooling that lasted roughly from the 16th to the mid-19th centuries.

Even though the orbital cycle that produced the cooling continued, it was overwhelmed in the 20th century by human-induced warming. The result was summer temperatures in the Arctic by the year 2000 that were about 1.4 degrees C (2.5 degrees F) higher than would have been expected from the continued cyclical cooling alone.

"If it hadn't been for the increase in human-produced greenhouse gases, summer temperatures in the Arctic should have cooled gradually over the last century," says Bette Otto-Bliesner, an NCAR scientist who participated in the study.

NATURAL ARCHIVES OF ARCTIC CLIMATE

To reconstruct Arctic temperatures over the last 2,000 years, the study team incorporated three types of field-based data, each of which captured the response of a different component of the Arctic's climate system to changes in temperature.

These data included temperature reconstructions published by the study team earlier this year. The reconstructions were based on evidence provided by sediments from Arctic lakes, which yielded two kinds of clues: changes in the abundance of silica remnants left behind by algae, which reflect the length of the growing season, and the thickness of annually deposited sediment layers, which increases during warmer summers as deposits from glacial meltwater increase.

The research also incorporated previously published data from glacial ice and tree rings that were calibrated against the instrumental temperature record.

The scientists compared the temperatures inferred from the field-based data with simulations run with the Community Climate System Model, a computer model of global climate based at NCAR. The model's estimate of the reduction of seasonal sunlight in the Arctic and the resulting cooling was consistent with the analysis of the lake sediments and other natural archives. These results give scientists more confidence in computer projections of future Arctic temperatures.

"This study provides a clear example of how increased greenhouse gases are now changing our climate, ending at least 2,000 years of Arctic cooling," says NCAR scientist Caspar Ammann, a co-author.

The new study follows previous work showing that temperatures over the last century warmed almost three times faster in the Arctic than elsewhere in the Northern Hemisphere. This phenomenon, called Arctic amplification, occurs as highly reflective Arctic ice and snow melt away, allowing dark land and exposed ocean to absorb more sunlight.

"Because we know that the processes responsible for past Arctic amplification are still operating, we can anticipate that it will continue into the next century," says Gifford Miller of the University of Colorado at Boulder, a member of the study team. "Consequently, Arctic warming will continue to exceed temperature increases in the rest of the Northern Hemisphere, resulting in accelerated loss of land ice and an increased rate of sea level rise, with global consequences."

About the article
* Title: "Recent Warming Reverses Long-Term Arctic Cooling"
* Authors: Darrell S. Kaufman, David P. Schneider, Nicholas P. McKay, Caspar M. Ammann, Raymond S. Bradley, Keith R. Briffa, Gifford H. Miller, Bette L. Otto-Bliesner, Jonathan T. Overpeck, Bo M. Vinther, and Journal of Paleolimnology special issue authors.
*Publication: Science, September 4, 2009​

© 2013 UCAR

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

 

Where was it anti science then ?

You have been given links to dozens of abstracts and full studies that disagree.

Because thats when the warming stopped ! I made no claim it had not been warming before this

.

Take it up with the scientists who wrote the reviews then. I'm just the messenger

Yes everything becomes unprecedented once you ignore the precedents doesnt it ?

Prove it ? There is no Peer reviewed empirical evidence published to date that has established anything of the sort

It is nothing of the sort. Thats a set of assumptions based on climate models . All of which have failed to predict anything right over the last 25 years because the climate sensitivity of CO 2 has been grossly overestimated

What fossil fuel propaganda campaign would that be then ?

Again you should take that up with the authors of the mass of studies that disagree given you clearly know better than they do

I couldnt care less about politics. Its getting to the truth through the mire of disinformation on this issue that is my primary objective here nothing more. If the sums stack up with the science and observations I'll believe them if they dont I wont its no more complicated for me than that. You are the one waving the flag here I'm not.

I cant make you accept what you dont want to see. My Greenland study post dates yours

The links you were provided with all contained sublinks to the published studies or abstracts they cited

Please prove that Exxon wrote the published studies sublinked therein

You are currently the one making all the noise yet saying nothing except to dismiss everything you dont want to see

Its a pretty damning quote from the studys own author. What interpretation are we supposed to put on it ? And why must this study be of far more significance than all the others that contradict it ? You are very happy dismissing those out of hand simply because they arent saying what you want to hear it seems


.

 

Volcanoes spew out hot pyroclastic ashes. CO2 can be reduced by using volcanoes heat (create geothermal pools around volcanoes, same as used in Iceland)

 

I want to get this straight. You're claiming that I'm wrong about what I just said there about how, after the last period of glaciation ended, global temperatures continued rising and then peaked during a period appropriately called the 'Holocene Thermal Maximum', after which they started slowly declining for about 5000 years until the twentieth century, when the falling trend ended and an abrupt rapid warming trend began? Is that right? And now you're making the additional claim that there are "dozens of abstracts and full studies that disagree" and you can provide the links to those studies? Is that what you're specifically saying? I say you are mistaken or BS'ing! Considering that I just posted two separate scientific studies that support what I just said, and considering that I haven't yet seen these supposed "links" you claim you've "given" me already, I think you're just blowing smoke and bluffing, so I challenge you to prove your claims. Try backing up your possibly fraudulent claims by actually citing some peer-reviewed studies that contradict what I said and what the two studies I quoted also said, and also try quoting the relevant material that supposedly supports your position and don't just C&P a list of links to papers that, going by my previous encounters with you, often don't actually support your claims. Point out the relevant parts specifically. If you can support your position, do so, it should be easy enough if you actually have these links. Just don't refuse to provide any actual support by claiming you've already done so and can't be bothered to produce it again. That's just a loser's game to avoid admitting that you actually have nothing to support your rejection of the facts just because they don't agree with your denier cult myths.

Put up or shut up.

LOLOL. 1998 isn't the year "when the warming stopped", it's the year the warming really peaked. It's the year when several natural factors that tend to push temperatures higher all combined with the underlying CO2 driven warming trend that had already raised temperatures so much in the 80s and 90s, to drive global temperatures to really record heights. Since then, both 2005 and 2010 were hotter than 1998 and every year except 2008 wound up being hotter than all of the years in the twentieth century except 1998.

At that time in 1998, after twenty consecutive years of higher than average temperatures, a positive phase of the PDO combined with the strongest El Niño of the century plus a strong solar maximum on top of the CO2 warming and produced this:
1998 WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD, NOAA ANNOUNCES
NOAA
1/11/99
Global temperatures in 1998 were the warmest in the past 119 years, since reliable instrument records began, the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced today. The previous record high surface temperature was set last 1997. The global mean temperature in 1998 was 1.20 °F (0.66°C) above the long-term average value of 56.9°F (13.8°C). This was the 20th consecutive year with an annual global mean surface temperature exceeding the long-term average. "The persistent 1997-1998 El Niño, which lingered into the first half of the year, and the unprecedented warmth of the Indian Ocean contributed to this record warm year," said NOAA Administrator Dr. D. James Baker

....and that's why the deniers always want to cherry-pick 1998 as the start point of their temperature graphs. If you start much further back than that, the long term warming trend is obvious. If you consider 1998 a statistical anomaly produced by an unusual combination of natural factors and just remove that one year from the graph, the rising temperature trend is even more obvious and undeniable. Picking 1998 as a start point for a temperature graph is cherry-picking statistical trick to fool people.

How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data

 

Well heres the simple solution to the problem thats clearly so intractable for you. In order to read the abstracts and Peer reviews sublinked therein you first have to actually open the links supplied to do so. That might then require you to read something you dont want to see and of course for you that would never do

Take it up with the satellites and the thermometers then because once again I'm only the messenger
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/ha.../uah/from:2004.75/plot/uah/from:2004.75/trend

 

ROTFLMAO......as I figured.....all bluff and bluster but no delivery, no "dozens of abstracts and full studies that disagree".....even when challenged specifically, you flake out and refuse to provide those links you claimed you had......that's soooooo pathetic and sooooo typical of the phony, deceptive way denier cultists try to push their propaganda and lies in these debates.....the actual "simple solution" is for you to actually post those links with specific quotes of the parts you claim disagree with the info I provided....but you can't do it.....LOLOL....I made a bet with myself that you couldn't deliver....that you would try to weasel out of it with some totally lame excuse like you just used....so I won my bet.....and you revealed that your claims about the scientific support for your denial of reality are just fraudulent hokum.....

LOLOLOLOL.....after I just point out that you're cherry-picking your starting point for your graphs by using 1998, you turn right around and again present a graph with start dates within a year or two of 1998.....and then once again claim the "satellites and thermometers" support you and you're "only the messenger"....LOLOL....you're not the messenger, you're the cherry-picker who uses deceptive statistics to try to fool people....here's your graph with everything the same except that the start date is changed to 1990....notice the rising trend in temperatures?

 

Here a prominent national meteorologist, Dr. Jeff Masters, who studies climate, talking about how the deniers always pick the year 1998 as the start point for their graphs in order to deceive people about the actual temperature trends.

Global warming continues with no slow down
by Dr. Jeff Masters
Wunderground.com
March 27, 2013
(excerpts)
One often hears the statement in the media that global warming stopped in 1998, or that there has been no global warming for the past 16 years. Why pick 16 years? Why not some nice round number like 20 years? Or better yet, 30 years, since the climate is generally defined as the average weather experienced over a period of 30 years or longer? Temperatures at Earth's surface undergo natural, decades-long warming and cooling trends, related to the La Niña/El Niño cycle and the 11-year sunspot cycle. The reason one often hears the year 1998 used as a base year to measure global temperature trends is that this is a cherry-picked year. An extraordinarily powerful El Niño event that was the strongest on record brought about a temporary increase in surface ocean temperatures over a vast area of the tropical Pacific that year, helping boost global surface temperatures to the highest levels on record (global temperatures were warmer in both 2005 and 2010, but not by much.) But in the years from 2005 - 2012, La Niña events have been present for at least a portion of every single year, helping keep Earth's surface relatively cool. Thus, if one draws a straight-line fit of global surface temperatures from 1998 to 2012, a climate trend showing little global warming results. If one picks any year prior to 1998, or almost any year after 1998, a global warming trend does result. The choice of 1998 is a deliberate abuse of statistics in an attempt to manipulate people into drawing a false conclusion on global temperature trends. One of my favorite examples of this manipulation of statistics is shown an animated graph called "The Escalator", created by skepticalscience.com (Figure 1).


Figure 1. Average of NASA's GISS, NOAA"s NCDC, and the UK Met Office's HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature departures from average, from January 1970 through November 2012 (blue), with linear trends applied to the time frames Jan '70 - Oct '77, Apr '77 - Dec '86, Sep '87 - Nov '96, Jun '97 - Dec '02, Nov '02 - Nov '12. Climate change skeptics like to emphasize the shorter term fluctuations in global temperatures (blue lines) and ignore the long-term climate trend (red line.) The global surface temperature trend from January 1970 through November 2012 (red line) is +0.16°C (+0.29°F) per decade. Image credit: skepticalscience.com.

 

From Dr.Jeff Master's Wunderblog... LOL, no joke that's what the site is called...And it's actually the weather underground, which is as you know a big internet weather site. And that entire piece is from the guy who started it, or his blog actually.. So it's an Opinion piece, written by a guy who has a history of making ridiculous weather tie-ins to global warming...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/09/dr-jeff-masters-gets-caught-up-in-the-full-on-media-stupidity/

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2013/03/dr-jeff-masters-katrina-level-storm-surges-have-more-than-doubled-due-to-global-warming/

The dude has a bad habit of claiming storms are due to global warming, and supports every thing the IPCC has said in the past.. The fact they haven't been right yet, doesn't dissuade him.. So you linked a warmers blog and called it science again.. Not a shock..

 

Yeah, a big internet weather site that is the weather provider for the Associated Press, many newspapers and the Google search engine.

Actually it is a piece of good science written by a professional scientist with a PhD in meteorology and a history of accurately showing the links between recent increases in extreme weather events and AGW. Too bad your denier cult biases blind you to reality like that.

Citing the ravings of a proven fraud like Watts, who has no credentials, who was just a weather reader on TV, who didn't even graduate from college, and who has financial links to the fossil fuel industry, as a rebuttal to the work of a prominent national PhD level meteorologist who actively researches climate changes, is just so pathetic and so typical of your inability to distinguish good sources from fraudulent ones.

What was your point in citing this entry on a science blog? It is just a short blog post citing a report Dr. Masters did about two published scientific papers concerning the increase in storm surges.

Dr. Jeff Masters: Katrina-level storm surges have more than doubled due to global warming
Posted by coby on March 26, 2013

Jeff Masters reports on these studies:

Grinsted, A., J. C. Moore, and S. Jevrejeva, 2012, “A homogeneous record of Atlantic hurricane surge threat since 1923,” PNAS 2012, doi:10.1073/pnas.1209542109

Grinsted, A., J. C. Moore, and S. Jevrejeva, 2012, “Projected Atlantic hurricane surge threat from rising temperatures” PNAS March 18, 2013 201209980, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1209980110

There is a press release here.



And apparently this is on top of the effects from sea level rise, of which rises measured by metres are not out of the question.

So??? Global warming is increasing extreme weather events and, because AGW has increased the water vapor levels in the air, storms are now dropping more rain or snow than they used to. Dr. Masters reports on reality and you deny reality.

Your denier cult myths about the supposed inaccuracy of the IPCC reports have nothing to do with reality and everything to do with the the fraudulent propaganda that has you so bamboozled. The fact that the IPCC has been right about most things and, if anything, too conservative in their predictions, doesn't dissuade you from falsely denying that fact. Almost all of the reputable professional scientists recognize the accuracy of the IPCC science reports. It is only in the myths of the AGW denier cultists that the IPCC is seen as always wrong. The fact that you are in denial about this is obvious to everyone but the other deniers.

So I linked to some accurate science written by a professional climate scientist which happens to debunk one of your favorite denier cult statistical tricks designed to fool people and that upsets you. So you ignore the information being presented and instead try to disparage the scientist who wrote it. Standard denier cult tactics.

 

You disagee with the facts then . Fair enough

 

Nope. Wrong again, as usual. I support the facts. You're in denial about the facts.

I notice you still haven't come up with those fictitious "links" to all those supposed "studies" that you claimed would support your denial of the facts. I'm still laughing.

 

Methane is more likely the driver of AGW if it exists, but regulating cow farts and underwater vents isn't as much political fun.