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/

Thorin is proving countless science to easily refute Tommy and he clearly does not like the fact he is being schooled

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...)

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/vostok.png



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




Link for this pic here...

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...?

And as seen Tommy regurgitates his previous claims already debunked

So he hopes he can piss me off by spamming the same article over 10 times

He will of course learn to read and understand science before I stopped showing why he is constantly wrong








Human fingerprints on climate change rule out natural cycles

Link to this page

What the science says...


A natural cycle requires a forcing, and no known forcing exists that fits the fingerprints of observed warming - except anthropogenic greenhouse gases.


Climate Myth...


It's a natural cycle
"Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warming—it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years." (Don Easterbrook)




"What if global warming is just a natural cycle?" This argument is, perhaps, one of the most common raised by the average person, rather than someone who makes a career out of denying climate change. Cyclical variations in climate are well-known to the public; we all studied the ice ages in school. However, climate isn't inherently cyclical.

A common misunderstanding of the climate system characterizes it like a pendulum. The planet will warm up to "cancel out" a previous period of cooling, spurred by some internal equilibrium. This view of the climate is incorrect. Internal variability will move energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, causing short-term warming and cooling of the surface in events such as El Nino and La Nina, and longer-term changes when similar cycles operate on decadal scales. However, internal forces do not cause climate change. Appreciable changes in climate are the result of changes in the energy balance of the Earth, which requires "external" forcings, such as changes in solar output, albedo, and atmospheric greenhouse gases. These forcings can be cyclical, as they are in the ice ages, but they can come in different shapes entirely.

For this reason, "it's just a natural cycle" is a bit of a cop-out argument. The Earth doesn't warm up because it feels like it. It warms up because something forces it to. Scientists keep track of natural forcings, but the observed warming of the planet over the second half of the 20th century can only be explained by adding in anthropogenic radiative forcings, namely increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

Of course, it's always possible that some natural cycle exists, unknown to scientists and their instruments, that is currently causing the planet to warm. There's always a chance that we could be totally wrong. This omnipresent fact of science is called irreducible uncertainty, because it can never be entirely eliminated. However, it's very unlikely that such a cycle exists.

Firstly, the hypothetical natural cycle would have to explain the observed "fingerprints" of greenhouse gas-induced warming. Even if, for the sake of argument, we were to discount the direct measurements showing an increased greenhouse effect, other lines of evidence point to anthropogenic causes. For example, the troposphere (the lowest part of the atmosphere) is warming, but the levels above, from the stratosphere up, are cooling, as less radiation is escaping out to space. This rules out cycles related to the Sun, as solar influences would warm the entire atmosphere in a uniform fashion. The only explanation that makes sense is greenhouse gases.

What about an internal cycle, perhaps from volcanoes or the ocean, that releases massive amounts of greenhouse gases? This wouldn't make sense either, not only because scientists keep track of volcanic and oceanic emissions of CO2 and know that they are small compared to anthropogenic emissions, but also because CO2 from fossil fuels has its own fingerprints. Its isotopic signature is depleted in the carbon-13 isotope, which explains why the atmospheric ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13 has been going up as anthropogenic carbon dioxide goes up. Additionally, atmospheric oxygen (O2) is decreasing at the same rate that CO2 is increasing, because oxygen is consumed when fossil fuels combust.

A natural cycle that fits all these fingerprints is nearly unfathomable. However, that's not all the cycle would have to explain. It would also have to tell us why anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not having an effect. Either a century of basic physics and chemistry studying the radiative properties of greenhouse gases would have to be proven wrong, or the natural cycle would have to be unbelievably complex to prevent such dramatic anthropogenic emissions from warming the planet.

It is indeed possible that multidecadal climate variability, especially cycles originating in the Atlantic, could be contributing to recent warming, particularly in the Arctic. However, the amplitude of the cycles simply can't explain the observed temperature change. Internal variability has always been superimposed on top of global surface temperature trends, but the magnitude - as well as the fingerprints - of current warming clearly indicates that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are the dominant factor.

Despite all these lines of evidence, many known climatic cycles are often trumpeted to be the real cause, on the Internet and in the media. Many of these cycles have been debunked on Skeptical Science, and all of them either aren't in the warming phases, don't fit the fingerprints, or both.

For example, we are warming far too fast to be coming out of the last ice age, and the Milankovitch cycles that drive glaciation show that we should be, in fact, very slowly going into a new ice age (but anthropogenic warming is virtually certain to offset that influence).

The "1500-year cycle" that S. Fred Singer attributes warming to is, in fact, a change in distribution of thermal energy between the poles, not a net increase in global temperature, which is what we observe now.

The Little Ice Age following the Medieval Warm Period ended due to a slight increase in solar output (changes in both thermohaline circulation and volcanic activity also contributed), but that increase has since reversed, and global temperature and solar activity are now going in opposite directions. This also explains why the 11-year solar cycle could not be causing global warming.

ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) and PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) help to explain short-term variations, but have no long-term trend, warming or otherwise. Additionally, these cycles simply move thermal energy between the ocean and the atmosphere, and do not change the energy balance of the Earth.

As we can see, "it's just a natural cycle" isn't just a cop-out argument - it's something that scientists have considered, studied, and ruled out long before you and I even knew what global warming was.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-natural-cycle.htm

Didge wrote:Thorin is proving countless science to easily refute Tommy and he clearly does not like the fact he is being schooled

Dodge is spamming this thread with irrelevant waffle and is referring to himself (in the 3rd person context) as 'Thorin', even though his actual username is 'Didge'...


And is refusing to address the points/questions raised...


What a twat!!!

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures?

Link to this page

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate

While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.



Climate Myth...


Medieval Warm Period was warmer
The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than current conditions. This means recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made.


One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1400 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking?

Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period may have been warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming.

Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the globe. The National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions in 2006 found it plausible that current temperatures are hotter than during the Medieval Warm Period. Further evidence obtained since 2006 suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times (Figure 1). This was also confirmed by a major paper from 78 scientists representing 60 scientific institutions around the world in 2013.

Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today's warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.

Overall, our conclusions are:

a) Globally temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2,000 years, and

b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming.


Figure 1: Northern Hemisphere Temperature Reconstruction by Moberg et al. (2005) shown in blue, Instrumental Temperatures from NASA shown in Red.


https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

So the above well and truly spanks Tommys claims bad up his wobbly butt

Priceless

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...)

http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/vostok.png



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




Link for this pic here...

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...?






The medieval warm period was 1000 years ago... the 2nd graph shows most of the last 8000 was warmer than now!!!


So the medieval period was not 'unusually warm' at all... but more the normal warm temperatures that were present in recent history of 8000 years!!!

Also the 2nd graph is from here...


http://mathdept.ucr.edu/


Hardly a denialist site... wouldn't you say...?

I just gave evidence to show why there is warmer periods in the past aand what does Tommy do?

Ignore the evidence and spam again his circular debunked claimed

He is now been weighed, measured and truly left found wanting

I have no more needed to be said

Tommy really got a spanking here and further proof he knows next to nothing about science

Happy days

So what caused these warm periods over the last few hundred thousand years... in this ice core data study?

Full image here...


http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/vostok.png

Just PMSL

I suggest Tommy reads the countless links provided

Its funny, that the moment he actually read the replies, he shut the fuck up about his pathetic claim he plagiarized from other climate denialists.
This is why some people don't look at both sides of the evidence, they just buy into conspiracy idiocy

Anyway, Tommy, is well and truly done on this and its been great fun

If he wants to believe idiots and not scientists, then good luck to him, but one thing is clear, he does not understand science

Dodge... you talk absolute rubbish and you don't understand any of thd nonsense you have spammed on here!!!

Still waiting for anyone to show how any of these statements are wrong...



I have provided the facts numerous times on multiple threads...


Temperatures have always changed over millions of years...


We have returned to normal temperatures from a cold period...


Co2 levels have varied wildly in the past and been higher during colder periods as well as lower during warmer periods...


Co2 levels have hardly changed at all over the last few millenia...


The heat we have here on earth is from the Sun... and the sun does not always give out the same amount of heat... also, the distance of earth from sun is not always the same either!!!

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!

You do realise that 'on record' means only since records began, which was around 100-150 years ago...!?

lol and all these have been answered by science already on this thread

So again Tommy, gets even more desperate

Tommy is like debating a Jehovah's Witnesses.

Anyway, he is going to continue to be in denial and constantly spam the thread, denying the scientific evidence.

Poor chap lol

All you have done dodge, is spam the thread with waffle that you copied from elsewhere...!!!


And you don't understand any of it!!!


Or why it is mostly irrelevant and wrong!!!

Been really cold last few days...


Must be that 'Global warming' again...!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Been really cold last few days...


Must be that 'Global warming' again...!!!

It's January and I have no idea why you keep denying global warming but cos I'm ridiculously unread on this topic so I can't even argue the point except everyone else's evidence shows that you're wrong IMHO.

eddie wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Been really cold last few days...


Must be that 'Global warming' again...!!!

It's January  and I have no idea why you keep denying global warming but cos I'm ridiculously unread on this topic so I can't even argue the point except everyone else's evidence shows that you're wrong IMHO.

Not quite... my evidence and much of everyone else's evidence actually shows I'm right!!!

Tommy Monk wrote:Been really cold last few days...


Must be that 'Global warming' again...!!!

This is why it's pointless to debate global warming with you; you think that global warming theory means it will never get cold again!

You want to see what global warming does? Where I live, it hit 82 on Christmas Day, a new record high. About two weeks later the high was 28.

Tommy can't help but prove himself to be more and more stupid, day by day...

"Global warming" and "global cooling" are both verified conditions affecting our global climatology..

Climate Change is the actual subject being discussed here  --  the study of what is causing the more extreme weather conditions being experienced in many parts of the world these days --  and mankinds contributions to accellerating and worsening these changes.
Tommy's increasingly inane deflections and denials notwithstanding..