Global Climate Change Science News

[Seth]

The North Atlantic between Newfoundland and Ireland is practically the only region of the world that has defied global warming and even cooled. Last winter there even was the coldest on record – while globally it was the hottest on record. Our recent study (Rahmstorf et al. 2015) attributes this to a weakening of the Gulf Stream System, which is apparently unique in the last thousand years.

That would only be true if NOAA weren't fucking with the numbers to make it look that way. But they are fucking with the numbers, and it's not true, it's a giant lie.

[pErvinalia]

Bloody Marxists!!

[piscator]

Water is apparently in on the conspiracy too...

[piscator]

^^Link in pic

[pErvinalia]

Oxygen is the ringleader of this conspiracy. It doesn't like CO2. That's why it's badmouthing it. Marxist oxygen. Von Mises was right.

[Seth]

Pretty amazing how this thread has gone into hibernation once I started posting articles showing that AGW is a scam. Here's another:

Daily Caller News Foundation
(Photo : REUTERS/NASA/Solar Dynamics Observatory/Handout via Reuters ) A dynamic swirling mass of plasma is seen spinning above the Sun (Photo : REUTERS/NASA/Solar Dynamics Observatory/Handout via Reuters ) A dynamic swirling mass of plasma is seen spinning above the Sun's surface for over 36 hours on June 16 - 17, 2013, in this handout image provided by NASA. The mass was accompanied by two smaller prominences, which was also being pushed and pulled around by magnetic forces, according to NASA.
The Sun Is ‘Blank’ As Solar Activity Comes To A Standstill
Photo of Michael Bastasch
Michael Bastasch
2:41 PM 04/30/2015




A new report from seasoned meteorologists says the sun is “almost completely blank” as the center of the solar system enters its weakest cycle in more than a century.

“The main driver of all weather and climate, the entity which occupies 99.86% of all of the mass in our solar system, the great ball of fire in the sky has gone quiet again during what is likely to be the weakest sunspot cycle in more than a century,” according to Virginia-based weather forecaster Vencore Weather.

“The sun’s X-ray output has flatlined in recent days and NOAA forecasters estimate a scant 1% chance of strong flares in the next 24 hours,” Vencore notes. “Not since cycle 14 peaked in February 1906 has there been a solar cycle with fewer sunspots. We are currently more than six years into Solar Cycle 24 and the current nearly blank sun may signal the end of the solar maximum phase.”

“Going back to 1755, there have been only a few solar cycles in the previous 23 that have had a lower number of sunspots during its maximum phase,” according to Vencore.

What does this mean for the climate? For years scientists have been warning that solar activity (a.k.a. sunspots) has been falling, and that could mean cooler global temperatures are on the way.

Some scientists have even warned that weakening solar activity could spark another “Little Ice Age,” arguing conditions mirror the centuries of global cooling the Earth went through from the late Middle Ages to the mid-19th Century.

“The stagnation of temperature since 1998 was caused by decreasing solar activity since 1998,” wrote Jürgen Lange Heine, a physicist with the German-based European Institute for Climate and Energy.

“From 1900 to 1998, solar radiation increased by 1.3 W / m², but since 1998 it has diminished, and could reach values ​​similar to those of the early 20th century. A drop in global temperature over the next few years is predicted,” Heine wrote.

The “stagnation” in global temperatures since the late 1990s Heine refers to is commonly called the “pause” by climate scientists. Most scientists attribute this “pause” in warming to natural climate cycles that have a cooling effect on the planet, especially ocean oscillation cycles. But it seems that increasingly researchers are looking to the sun for an explanation for the “pause.”

The sun has a very large impact on temperatures on the Earth’s thermosphere. Temperatures there increase “with altitude due to absorption of highly energetic solar radiation and are highly dependent on solar activity,” according to Vencore.

“If history is a guide, it is safe to say that weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a cooling impact on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottom-most layer of Earth’s atmosphere – and where we all live,” Vencore notes.

There are two periods with long episodes of low solar activity, according to Vencore. One is called the “Maunder Minimum” and lasted from about 1645 to 1715. The other is called the “Dalton Minimum” and stretched from about 1790 to 1830.

“Both of these historical periods coincided with colder-than-normal global temperatures in an era now referred to by many scientists as the ‘Little Ice Age,’” according to Vencore. “In addition, research studies in just the past couple of decades have found a complicated relationship between solar activity, cosmic rays, and clouds on Earth.”

“This research suggests that in times of low solar activity where solar winds are typically weak; more cosmic rays reach the Earth’s atmosphere which, in turn, has been found to lead to an increase in certain types of clouds that can act to cool the Earth,” notes Vencore.

[Hermit]

^^^ That is not an argument against anthropic global warming. It just explains that if anthropic global warming exists the sun's decreased energy output is offsetting it.

Why do both sides of the climate change debate have to be such irrational warriors for their respective causes?

[macdoc]

There is only one being irrational Hermit aside from loonie tune Seth and it's you....
You're so fucking far being the knowledge curve it's astonishing.....you HAVE NO RATIONAL POSITION with ANY science base at all to deny what's going on.

Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change.

This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”

In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on:
This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”

Dr. Richard H. Gammon
Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography*
Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington

That was 5 years or more ago....

The discussion needs to be about policy and how to deal with our anthro follies......that's a very difficult set of decisions.......the world has moved on.
Fuck the tooth fairy has more cred than AGW deniers.

This wallowing in denial is fucking retarded - right wing reality distotion paid for by the Koch Bro and co
.....and you claiming to be this neutral observer is totally a fucking laugh.

There are no "sides" Hermit....there is evidence...and it's overwhelming....
It's getting warmer
We're responsible.

Buck up and take some responsibility as what to do about it is tricky - no clear path at all save for reducing emissions ....which is moving along nicely despite the denial flak.

The world finally stopped growing the emissions last year.

Some countries are half way to carbon neutral.

Money is pulling out of fossil fuels.

Yeah - they'll be around for a while....but if they are smart ...they'll become energy giants....not sunset fossil fuel industries.
..and some are moving that way to a broader business base. No choice, boards and investors are shoving them.

Hell - the mother of them all....the Rockefellers are divesting.
When are you going to read the writing Hermit and move on.....instead of pretending a rational stance.
You don't have one.

[Hermit]

I knew you'd chuck yet another wobbly while claiming that global warming researchers are totally objective, believable and absolutely correct. You are the mirror image of Seth in that regard. He too sees everything in purely black and white terms and is always completely certain that his views are 100% correct. Peas in a pod, you two.

[Seth]

^^^ That is not an argument against anthropic global warming. It just explains that if anthropic global warming exists the sun's decreased energy output is offsetting it.

Why do both sides of the climate change debate have to be such irrational warriors for their respective causes?

Soooo... Anthropic Global Warming is actually saving the planet from a new Ice Age, and that's a bad thing because...??

[mistermack]

Here is what Gammon had to say concerning links between humans and climate change.

This is like asking, ‘Is the moon round?’ or ‘Does smoking cause cancer?’ We’re at a point now where there is no responsible position stating that humans are not responsible for climate change. That is just not where the science is.…For a long time, for at least five years and probably 10 years, the international scientific community has been very clear.”

In case there is any doubt, Gammon went on:
This is not the balance-of-evidence argument for a civil lawsuit; this is the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt We’ve been there for a long time and I think the media has really not presented that to the public.”

Dr. Richard H. Gammon
Professor of Chemistry and Oceanography*
Adjunct Professor Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington

Unfortunately for the ''international scientific community'', the actual climate has disagreed.
For the last TWENTY years.
Who are you going to believe? A load of activist zealots, or the Earth?

The models said warming. The Earth said no.
An inconvenient truth.

[cronus]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... VEZFI5ViE0

Apparent slowing of sea level rise is artefact of satellite data

A slowdown in rising sea levels recorded over the past decade is down to a measurement error. In fact, sea levels are rising more quickly than ever.

Over the past century, the sea level has risen by around 0.2 metres, and it has been rising faster and faster.

However, this trend got murky over the past decade, with satellite data suggesting that the sea level has risen slightly more slowly in the past decade than in the previous one.

That would be good news if true. Yet the result was odd because other studies showed that more water than ever was pouring into the oceans from melting glaciers and ice caps.

"It was a bit of puzzle," says Christopher Watson of the University of Tasmania in Hobart.

One possible explanation was that more water had been accumulating on land because of increased rainfall in some places. This can undoubtedly cause fluctuations in sea level; the intense flooding in Australia and elsewhere in 2011, for instance, caused a distinct dip.

Watson's team has now shown the rates have not actually slowed down but are, indeed, still accelerating. It found that the apparent slowdown was due to errors in satellite data, which have been used since 1993 to measure sea levels, in addition to tide gauges.

His team identified errors in the satellite record by, among other things, comparing the satellite data to a larger number of tide gauges than any previous analysis. Their analysis shows the apparent decline was due to calibration errors that meant the first satellite – Topex A, which operated from 1993 to 1999 – slightly overestimated sea levels. This masked the ongoing acceleration.

The results fit in much better both with measurements of ice loss and with projections of future sea level rises. "It is consistent with all the projections," Watson says.

(continued, airlines go bust and the skies clear and the ship sinks in less than fifty years....)

[piscator]

No climate-change deniers to be found in the reinsurance business

The Bavarian city of Passau, about 200 kilometres east of Munich, has been called Germany’s Venice. It floats like a battleship, with church towers as funnels, at the confluence of one mighty river, the Danube, and two lesser ones, the Inn and the Ilz. The city is famous for its baroque and Gothic architecture; its star attraction, St. Stephen’s Cathedral, is home to Europe’s biggest pipe organ.

It is also famous for its floods.

They happen every few decades or so, turning public squares and narrow, cobblestone streets into canals. So the rains that began at the end of May seemed routine, certainly no equal to Passau’s worst flood in memory, dating to 1954, when the Danube swelled to a depth of 12.2 metres.

But the rains proved incessant and Passau’s three rivers kept rising mercilessly. By the morning of Sunday, June 2, it was obvious that the city of 50,000 was in trouble; anyone with a street-level shop, restaurant or office scrambled back to the old town to do what they could to minimize the inevitable damage.

...

In the aftermath of the German and Canadian floods, the victims, the insurers, the media, the politicians and the scientists were all asking the same questions: What caused them? Was it the relentless buildup of atmospheric carbon dioxide? Could “extreme” weather events become the new normal or were they once-a-millennium acts of god?

In Munich Re’s offices, there wasn’t much debate as the claims cheques flew out the door: The higher frequency of extreme weather events is influenced by climate change; and recent climate change is largely due to burning hydrocarbons. “I’m quite convinced that most climate change is caused by human activity,” says Peter Höppe, head of geo-risks research at Munich Re.

His statement is not remarkable, even though the big American insurers don’t like to put the words “climate change” and “anthropogenic” in the same sentence. What is remarkable is that Munich Re first warned about global warming way back in 1973, when it noticed that flood damage was increasing. It was the first big company to do so—two decades before the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit triggered a planetary anxiety attack by publicizing the concepts of “global warming” and “climate change.”

Munich Re, Swiss Re and the other reinsurers, along with the Lloyd’s of London insurance market (unrelated to the bank of the same name), stand out from the rest of the business world by being on the same page as scientists on climate change. What’s more, while most of the planet has its head in the sand about the reality and requirements of global warming, the reinsurance industry has already moved on to mastering the math on other catastrophes.

Like any industry, the reinsurers and insurers stay in business by not losing money year after year. To accomplish that, they have to turn ever-greater portions of “unexpected” losses stemming from the weather into “expected” losses, which requires that they become adept at risk modelling.

Reinsurers and insurers lose money when they misjudge risks that come back to bite them. To reduce their own risk profiles, the insurers have to become expert at matching the premiums to the estimated risk. Charging too little for, say, flood risk in a region that is becoming flood-prone is bad business. Equally, charging too much for premiums on natural catastrophes that are not on the rise, like earthquakes, is bad business because it scares away potential insurance buyers.

Just as recognizing the trend lines on climate change is good business for the reinsurers, the oil companies’ skepticism was designed to prevent or dilute regulations that would hurt their business. The reinsurers had no such axe to grind. ...

Munich Re—Münchener Rückversicherungs-Gesellschaft AG, to use its proper name—is one of the world’s biggest reinsurers. In 2012, it wrote €52 billion in insurance and reinsurance and earned €3.2 billion. It has 45,000 employees and a market value of €27 billion as of early November, putting it neck and neck with rival Swiss Re. There are no Canadian players of this scale in the business. The American biggie, General Re, is privately held. ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... /?page=all

[Seth]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... VEZFI5ViE0

Apparent slowing of sea level rise is artefact of satellite data

A slowdown in rising sea levels recorded over the past decade is down to a measurement error. In fact, sea levels are rising more quickly than ever.

Over the past century, the sea level has risen by around 0.2 metres, and it has been rising faster and faster.

However, this trend got murky over the past decade, with satellite data suggesting that the sea level has risen slightly more slowly in the past decade than in the previous one.

That would be good news if true. Yet the result was odd because other studies showed that more water than ever was pouring into the oceans from melting glaciers and ice caps.

"It was a bit of puzzle," says Christopher Watson of the University of Tasmania in Hobart.

One possible explanation was that more water had been accumulating on land because of increased rainfall in some places. This can undoubtedly cause fluctuations in sea level; the intense flooding in Australia and elsewhere in 2011, for instance, caused a distinct dip.

Watson's team has now shown the rates have not actually slowed down but are, indeed, still accelerating. It found that the apparent slowdown was due to errors in satellite data, which have been used since 1993 to measure sea levels, in addition to tide gauges.

His team identified errors in the satellite record by, among other things, comparing the satellite data to a larger number of tide gauges than any previous analysis. Their analysis shows the apparent decline was due to calibration errors that meant the first satellite – Topex A, which operated from 1993 to 1999 – slightly overestimated sea levels. This masked the ongoing acceleration.

The results fit in much better both with measurements of ice loss and with projections of future sea level rises. "It is consistent with all the projections," Watson says.

(continued, airlines go bust and the skies clear and the ship sinks in less than fifty years....)

I find it remarkable that the global warming "pause" is increasingly being attributed to "errors" in past data that have been "found" by Warmists all of a sudden.

Nothing to see here, no conspiracy, move along....

[cronus]

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2 ... VEZFI5ViE0

Apparent slowing of sea level rise is artefact of satellite data

A slowdown in rising sea levels recorded over the past decade is down to a measurement error. In fact, sea levels are rising more quickly than ever.

Over the past century, the sea level has risen by around 0.2 metres, and it has been rising faster and faster.

However, this trend got murky over the past decade, with satellite data suggesting that the sea level has risen slightly more slowly in the past decade than in the previous one.

That would be good news if true. Yet the result was odd because other studies showed that more water than ever was pouring into the oceans from melting glaciers and ice caps.

"It was a bit of puzzle," says Christopher Watson of the University of Tasmania in Hobart.

One possible explanation was that more water had been accumulating on land because of increased rainfall in some places. This can undoubtedly cause fluctuations in sea level; the intense flooding in Australia and elsewhere in 2011, for instance, caused a distinct dip.

Watson's team has now shown the rates have not actually slowed down but are, indeed, still accelerating. It found that the apparent slowdown was due to errors in satellite data, which have been used since 1993 to measure sea levels, in addition to tide gauges.

His team identified errors in the satellite record by, among other things, comparing the satellite data to a larger number of tide gauges than any previous analysis. Their analysis shows the apparent decline was due to calibration errors that meant the first satellite – Topex A, which operated from 1993 to 1999 – slightly overestimated sea levels. This masked the ongoing acceleration.

The results fit in much better both with measurements of ice loss and with projections of future sea level rises. "It is consistent with all the projections," Watson says.

(continued, airlines go bust and the skies clear and the ship sinks in less than fifty years....)

I find it remarkable that the global warming "pause" is increasingly being attributed to "errors" in past data that have been "found" by Warmists all of a sudden.

Nothing to see here, no conspiracy, move along....

Calibration errors are very common. Look at the price of oil and the stock market? No obvious connection but both appear way out of whack given the longer term trends. Even if the climate change lot are wrong, unlikely but there could be a drunk driver going the other way, even if they are wrong - might be good to preserve the remaining oil as long as possible? especially the light crude so crucial for aviation both civil and military?