AGW "stopped" 1998 - Nope! - smoking gun found

Varying planetary heat sink led to global-warming slowdown and acceleration Xianyao Chen, Ka-Kit Tung Science 22 August 2014: Vol. 345 no. 6199 pp. 897-903 DOI: 10.1126/science.1254937
Cause of global warming hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean Hannah Hickey | August 21, 2014 http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/08/21/cause-of-global-warming-hiatus-found-deep-in-the-atlantic-ocean/
Just to be clear, it isn't like this is the only study, it is simply another piece of the puzzle, but one that clearly demonstrates a significant amount of heat being sent into deep ocean.
(Top) Global average surface temperatures, where black dots are yearly averages. Two flat periods (hiatus) are separated by rapid warming from 1976-1999. (Middle) Observations of heat content, compared to the average, in the north Atlantic Ocean. (Bottom) Salinity of the seawater in the same part of the Atlantic. Higher salinity is seen to coincide with more ocean heat storage.
ps. There's no secret or mystery, the truth is out there
As Scientists Predicted, Global Warming Continues MARCH 28, 2013 http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/28/1785461/as-scientists-predicted-global-warming-continues/ Most of manmade global warming is ending up in the ocean, just as scientists had predicted (see “Global Warming Has Accelerated In Past 15 Years“). And while recent “observations support predictions of extreme warming" this century, even sophisticated media outlets, like “The Economist," get the story wrong (see “Memo To Media: ‘Climate Sensitivity’ Is NOT The Same As Projected Future Warming, World Faces 10°F Rise“). Former Hurricane Hunter Jeff Masters has a good chart-filled piece reviewing the latest temperature observations.
I hate it when I do that, 'edit' rather than 'quote'… sorry
Varying planetary heat sink led to global-warming slowdown and acceleration Xianyao Chen, Ka-Kit Tung
I found the story commented on theories but lacking data. A different twist. But we have to look beyond that because the scientist is from China and may have different views on how to write a story. But I did like the comments about the article, better than the actual article. And did you notice that he talked about people thinking there was a coming Ice Age some years back. You ask me for papers on that in another post. On his charts that showed the warmer temperatures in the depths of the ocean for thirty years then cooler temperatures for the next thirty years. And he claims in runs in cycles. “New research from the University of Washington shows that the heat absent from the surface is plunging deep in the north and South Atlantic Ocean, and is part of a naturally occurring cycle." I am pretty sure I have read just about the same items in other articles in the last year. I think Hannah Hickey titled the article wrong, I do not see this answering the hiatus of the missing heat.

Varying planetary heat sink led to global-warming slowdown and acceleration
Xianyao Chen, Ka-Kit Tung

I found the story commented on theories but lacking data. A different twist.
But we have to look beyond that because the scientist is from China and may have different views on how to write a story.
But I did like the comments about the article, better than the actual article.
And did you notice that he talked about people thinking there was a coming Ice Age some years back.
You ask me for papers on that in another post.
On his charts that showed the warmer temperatures in the depths of the ocean for thirty years then cooler temperatures for the next thirty years.
And he claims in runs in cycles. “New research from the University of Washington shows that the heat absent from the surface is plunging deep in the north and South Atlantic Ocean, and is part of a naturally occurring cycle."
I am pretty sure I have read just about the same items in other articles in the last year.
I think Hannah Hickey titled the article wrong, I do not see this answering the hiatus of the missing heat.

Lacking data, how so? Do you have an issue with the ARGO system?
But the bigger question for you to do some soul searching on is:
Are you actually in a position to claim they are lacking data?
What do you understand about the collecting or information processing?
One of the most hideous things of this grotesques public global warming debate is folks who don’t actually understand any of the nuts and bolts - passing these judgements with a certitude that goes way beyond their understanding - that isn’t healthy skepticism - that’s cynicism in the name of wanting to ignore the implication of inconvenient evidence.
~ ~ ~
I know that sort of hubristic presumptuousness is encouraged by the Libertarian/Republican media war against science - but it’s irrational just the same.

Look beyond what? And what’s Chinese got to do with it? - they are scientist and presenting their information to the world scientific community and many scientists and other experts who do understand these issue (with light years of knowledge beyond ours, or Anthony Watts, or Mc’s ).
Beside from a Earth geophysical standpoint - there is nothing at all surprising about these results -
If their work is weak, we would know about it (you can be sure the denial industry would have trumpeted and magnified the flaws), but I haven’t seen any objections… and you haven’t offered any serious sources that have objected.
Still, it is a fresh paper so that may change, be sure to share credible contra info it when you read about it, OK.

Yes, quite often comments sections are more interesting than the actual abstract, even at SkepticalScience.com you’ll find some very interesting and informative comments threads going.

Do you understand what that previous ice age/convey belt connection was about? Are you familiar with the oceanic conveyor belt? Evaporation makes water saltier heavier and causing the current to take a swimmer’s Uturn in the north Atlantic, settling to the bottom then heading south again. After ice ages, sometimes there was such a huge release of fresh melt water into the north Atlantic, diluting the water causing this over-turning action to stop. Totally disrupting the Gulf Stream and it’s warming influence on northern climate.
In your question you sinned in that you conflated what news pundits were saying and what the actual scientists were saying. I have yet to read any scientific paper projecting that this would occur (if you have one please do share - there’s always more to learn) - now the news media and pundits, that’s a whole different story and they even made a twisted idiotic movie that simpletons think is based on scientific claims. But it’s the case of building a house out of a sliver.

Here's some background on that: East Coast Faces Rising Seas From Slowing Gulf Stream By Michael D. Lemonick - Published: February 12th, 2013 http://www.climatecentral.org/news/east-coast-faces-rising-seas-from-slowing-gulf-stream-15587 ~ ~ ~ A climate seesaw in the Atlantic Researchers are trying to understand the impact of the Atlantic's big cycles. by Scott K. Johnson - Jan 28 2013 http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/01/a-climate-seesaw-in-the-atlantic/
============ You think it's a wrong title based on your expertise iiinn…. Or just cause it don't fit your state of mind? =========== Yes, Mike it is part of a natural cycle. CO2 is also part of the natural cycle. Huge increases in our planet's heat holding capacity, because of increased GHG insulation, is also part of a natural cycle! {Humanity has injected itself into those natural cycle - kapeesh} =========== Back to basics, with a couple questions for MikeYohe How can increasing the insulation around a body, with the heat input remaining the same, not heat the body/system? How can a warming global heat distribution engine, not be reflected in significant changes to natural cycle? Does changing a natural cycle make it an unnatural cycle? ============ I received a PM that did a nice concise job of explaining an aspect of this sinking water thingie -
When I first heard about this, I thought it was wrong because warmer water is lighter than cooler water so it shouldn’t sink. Then I learned that what happens is that the AGW warms the sea water, evaporates part of it increasing its salinity, which raises the density even more that the lowering by heating. So the warmer, saltier water sinks carrying heat down to deep ocean. As more and more of this happens, we’ll get the warmer water layer getting thicker until it reaches the surface. Then we’ll see MAJOR increases in both ocean and atmospheric heating, probably finishing off the melting of the polar ice.
I hope this information help.
Lacking data, how so? Do you have an issue with the ARGO system?
I got a family member who is a scientist who works with the ARGO system. It seems like it was twenty years ago he was on a ship deploying the instruments. Time flies. Maybe I did not get my thinking across about the article. But you know how the government gives out grants, I got the feeling that this was written like some articles are to get grant money. They take data from other projects, not data they came up with or created themselves and add a new view point to that data.
But the bigger question for you to do some soul searching on is: Are you actually in a position to claim they are lacking data? What do you understand about the collecting or information processing?
I have made my point clear many times. I am backing and following the scientist. They say the old data is unreliable for use in the computer models. They are and have launched new weather gathering satellites to gather new information that they hope when run in the computer models. That the computer models will agree. Now, my understanding is that some old weather data is good, but only is some areas of the world and they need worldwide data collected at the same time. And the two new areas of gathering data, the higher skies and the oceans have kind of the same problems. Can you imagine the scope of this system once it is in operation? The computers should be able to connect the actions and movement of energy anywhere in the world. They will be able to connect for example the air in Los Angeles to the weather in the Rocky Mountains. No more guess work.
One of the most hideous things of this grotesques public global warming debate is folks who don't actually understand any of the nuts and bolts - passing these judgements with a certitude that goes way beyond their understanding - that isn't healthy skepticism - that's cynicism in the name of wanting to ignore the implication of inconvenient evidence.
And let me add to your statement - and use that same line of thinking and create new taxes and laws, and then the big hammer, the international tax system built on carbon taxes. The people really have no clue. I myself will feel better when all the scientist agree on the cause and effect.
Beside from a Earth geophysical standpoint - there is nothing at all surprising about these results - If their work is weak, we would know about it (you can be sure the denial industry would have trumpeted and magnified the flaws), but I haven't seen any objections… and you haven't offered any serious sources that have objected. Still, it is a fresh paper so that may change, be sure to share credible contra info it when you read about it, OK.
Can you name or count the number of computer models that are being worked on today? Can you tell me the number of computer models that create data that agree? Let me help you out, zero. Instead of wasting all this time trying to make excuses for the 2007 and 2009 Global Warming predictions that did not work. Let’s just bury that XXXX XX data and Global Warming and move on to Climate Change. It is a step in the right direction. After all did this article not talk of another waste of energy and time spent on the earth coming into the Ice Age? Do you think back then that there were what you call “deniers" saying they did not think the Ice Age was coming? Once in a while I will call the scientists and catch them in the office and will ask them a couple of questions. For example I call the China scientist in Washington and only got his voice mail which was very heavily accented. The few times that I have been able to talk to the scientist, they all have said that they require more data to move forward. If we do not stick to the true proven facts the Global Warming may end up being the Michelson–Morley experiment of this century.
Look beyond what? And what's Chinese got to do with it? - they are scientist and presenting their information to the world scientific community and many scientists and other experts who do understand these issue (with light years of knowledge beyond ours, or Anthony Watts, or Mc's ). Beside from a Earth geophysical standpoint - there is nothing at all surprising about these results - If their work is weak, we would know about it (you can be sure the denial industry would have trumpeted and magnified the flaws), but I haven't seen any objections… and you haven't offered any serious sources that have objected. Still, it is a fresh paper so that may change, be sure to share credible contra info it when you read about it, OK.
CC, did you read my posting. The work on the ocean was not ground breaking at all. This was only a view point that the currents run in cycles and the temperatures changes in these cycles and that everyone has been looking for all that lost heat from the Global Warming predictions that has not shown up in the last decade. And he is saying that maybe there might be some of it used up in the natural cycles of the ocean. What I was pointing out to you was it was the writer of the article Hannah Hicley that is claiming the finding of the missing lost heat, not the scientist. I see his point, but I do not agree with Hannah Hicley. I am sure if we read the white papers written by the scientists we would find them hard to understand and comprehend, that what the reporters and science writers are supposed to do, take white papers written by the scientist and rewrite them so that people like you and me can understand the thought. The scientist thought was that the ocean cycles go from hot to cold every thirty years. Like a battery charging. Then the battery discharges for the next thirty years. So we are ten years in to the charging cycle and if we wait twenty more years we will see the discharging cycle which will add heat to the atmosphere. His problem is the same as with all the other scientists, not enough data over a long enough period to come to a conclusion. I am hopping with the computer models that the scientists will be able to follow the movement of energy around the earth. Heat is energy, just apply the rules of science.
Do you understand what that previous ice age/convey belt connection was about? Are you familiar with the oceanic conveyor belt? Evaporation makes water saltier heavier and causing the current to take a swimmer's Uturn in the north Atlantic, settling to the bottom then heading south again. After ice ages, sometimes there was such a huge release of fresh melt water into the north Atlantic, diluting the water causing this over-turning action to stop. Totally disrupting the Gulf Stream and it's warming influence on northern climate.
I have read the articles, and what we have is ice melting at 8.34 pounds per gallon and salt water at 9.2 pounds per gallon. And the weight difference they think creates the pump that moves the ocean water belt. That is because when the heavier salt water runs into the fresh water the saltwater sinks. But if a rush of fresh water runs into the conveyor belt the salt water mixes, then there is too much fresh water and the sinking of the salt water in the conveyor belt area is upset.
In your question you sinned in that you conflated what news pundits were saying and what the actual scientists were saying. I have yet to read any scientific paper projecting that this would occur (if you have one please do share - there's always more to learn) - now the news media and pundits, that's a whole different story and they even made a twisted idiotic movie that simpletons think is based on scientific claims. But it's the case of building a house out of a sliver.
Yea, you’re right. I got in a hurry. I should have made it clear that I was upset that the writer of the article was making claims that the scientist was not. Sorry.
You think it's a wrong title based on your expertise iiinn…. Or just cause it don't fit your state of mind?
Answer, both. It does not fit my understanding at this time. If they say there is energy going into the ocean belt, then who am I to disagree. But the scientist did not say this is where all the missing heat from the Global Warming predictions went. Just some of it may be use up in the belt. It is the writer making that claim.
Back to basics, with a couple questions for MikeYohe. How can increasing the insulation around a body, with the heat input remaining the same, not heat the body/system?
Back to basics, it cannot happen. So look at the amount of insulation you are talking about. Carbon for example is what 0.0003 of the makeup of the atmosphere. Now let’s add more carbon, let’s say add ten percent more or 0.00033 of 100.00000. Now how does that carbon act as an insulation? As you know a thin windbreaker will add more heat to the body than a big think sweater. So we are getting into thing we don’t understand. That is one reason I am backing the scientists. What we do know is that the earth heats up first. So, what people have been saying is that the body heats up and then a month later I put on a coat, therefore the coat was the reason for the body heating up a month before I put on the coat. Why don’t you ask the question that way? You know, the way the facts show. Everyone agrees that the coat will cause the body to heat and help the body to retain heat. But some people are asking why your body heated up a month ago before you put on the coat. And your answer is that you are just a denier and then a fall back that people don’t believe that the coat will help create heat, which is not true. Why not just come out and say, “You got to believe in the faith?" in your ideas and not question the thinking or you are going to be labeled a denier.
How can a warming global heat distribution engine, not be reflected in significant changes to natural cycle?
It would be stupid to think it would not. So, tell me, “significant changes"! We all agree there are changes. And we all agree that the changes are caused by mankind. Now I think we all agree that the Earth’s natural cycle has been warming the earth too. Therefore there are two things causing Global Warming, Earth’s Cycle and mankind. Now the scientist say that Global Warming was caused in the past by Earth’s Cycle and as the Earth’s Cycle heated the earth the carbon increased in the atmosphere, the carbon increase followed by a couple hundred years. And this is before mankind had any input. Therefore earth warming and carbon increase are part of the natural cycle. The scientists also say that the carbon levels were at one time 350 times higher and the earth was not heated up, the earth was in fact a snowball. The point being. You use the word “significant" in a loaded question. Because global warming has always and will always be part of the earth’s natural cycle. So if you use the term “Global Warming" and not “global warming" then you would be talking about mankind’s input of carbon. And the answer to that is we really don’t know yet. And everyone will agree that there are changes but not everyone agrees with “significant" changes. The scientists who claimed significant changes are still looking for where the heat went that was to cause the significant changes. The glaciers in the Himalayas have not melted as predicted by they should have years ago.
Does changing a natural cycle make it an unnatural cycle?
Yes. Man is part of the natural cycle of earth. All animals are. But mankind has stepped so far past the line of natural that he cannot even see the line anymore.
That is one reason I am backing the scientists.
When and where have you ever done that. Jeez, this wonder at the 400parts per million is a glaring example. Every line you bring up is a fake skeptic talking point and has nothing to do with any quote you could have gotten from a serious climate scientist. Prove me wrong start documenting your sources… you know like I try to do. Consider your confusion over seemingly minute numbers… it's pure argument from ignorance. Here's an excellent example dramatizing the impact that minute quantities can have:
http://www.aristatek.com/newsletter/0604April/TechSpeak.aspx The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) website [see http://www.osha.gov] lists the threshold odor concentration for detection of hydrogen cyanide as 0.58 parts per million (ppm) by the most sensitive individuals … The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists reported (cited in same OSHA website) that workers exposed to hydrogen cyanide concentrations ranging from 4 to 12 ppm for 7 years reported increased headaches, weakness, changes in taste and smell, throat irritation, vomiting, effort dyspnea, lacrimation (tearing), abdominal colic, precordial pain, and nervous instability. Also workers exposed to low concentrations of hydrogen cyanide developed enlarged thyroid glands. The OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) for hydrogen cyanide is 10 ppm as an 8‑hour time-weighted average (TWA) concentration. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) lists a lower limit of 4.7 ppm for worker short term exposure limit; the American Conference of Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has assigned 4.7 ppm as a worker ceiling limit. This is more conservative than OSHA. [the PEAC tool goes with the more conservative NIOSH/ACGIH listing of 4.7 ppm]. The word “SKIN" by the NIOSH and OSHA listing means that hydrogen cyanide can be absorbed also by the skin and eyes in addition to inhalation. The NIOSH “Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH)" listing for a 30-minute exposure is listed as 50 ppm for HCN. Recently, the IDLH level was lowered to 25 mg/m3 as cyanide including inhaling salts. [reference http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/cyanides.html]. The lethal oral dose of cyanide salt for an adult (70 kg) is 50 to 100 mg as cyanide.
fyi: 400 Parts in a Million: The World's Biggest Experiment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikGLNs3nYlc
What we do know is that the earth heats up first.
Now you are being very, very silly - and once again exposing the fact that you DO NOT get your information from scientists! Please do explain how you believe Earth heats up first. {Excuse me for seeming to have a fat head, but I've been listening to these dead-horse-beating questions a long time, and have examined and re-examined and incorporated the knowledge of new studies - you, on the other hand, sound like you simply repeat FOX Sound-Bites, without understanding what they are talking about, and simply taking their word for it.}
Therefore there are two things causing Global Warming, Earth’s Cycle and mankind.
You haven't listened to a single word have you :smirk: How about trying to digest the concept that humanity is heating up Earth's natural cycles… it'll take you a lot further, if you are looking for understanding.
The point being. You use the word “significant" in a loaded question. Because global warming has always and will always be part of the earth’s natural cycle. So if you use the term “Global Warming" and not “global warming" then you would be talking about mankind’s input of carbon.
What's loaded about significant to humanity's wellbeing? rising oceans destroying coast cities, massive droughts and deluges, beating the poop out of farmers, freaky wind events, unprecedented in human observational history Have you checked in on California lately, isn't that significant enough yet? how significant does it have to be before FreeMarketeerRacketeers start getting the message?
The glaciers in the Himalayas have not melted as predicted by they should have years ago.
Here again you repeat a sound bit of utter malicious willful ignorance - I will keep trying to be polite, but between you and me you are just another cynical fraud, you display not the slightest interest in actually incorporating new information into your understanding or outlook … but I'll say no more on that. It's hideous… what's happening in the Himalayas Mountains as we speak and even uglier when considering what it portents for it's inhabitants. >:-(
http://world.time.com/2013/05/27/fears-grow-of-a-himalayan-tsunami-as-glaciers-melt/ NEPAL Fears Grow of a Himalayan Tsunami as Glaciers Melt By Amantha Perera May 27, 2013 “Almost all the glaciers [in Dudh Koshi] are retreating at rates of 10 to 59 m annually," Mool says, “but the rate for some has accelerated during the last half-decade to 74 m annually." He explained that this had created 24 new glacial lakes in the area, which now had a total of 34 such bodies of water. At least 10 of them are considered dangerous. Research by a team from the University of Milan, released this month, found that in the past 50 years glaciers in the Everest region had shrunk by 13% and the snow line was now seen about 180 m higher up. Sudeep Thakuri, a researcher with the team, says the melting was most likely caused by warming temperatures and was certain to continue. Since 1992, premonsoon and winter temperatures in the Everest region have increased by 0.6ºC. Earthquakes also add to the risk. “Earthquakes could act as major triggers for glacial-lake outbursts," Mool says. He feels that much better monitoring of the lakes is needed to get a proper assessment of the dangers. ...
Climate change: Melting glaciers bring energy uncertainty Javaid Laghari http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-melting-glaciers-bring-energy-uncertainty-1.14031 Ice cover is decreasing in this region, as for most glaciers in the world, as a result of global warming. Between 2003 and 2009, Himalayan glaciers lost an estimated 174 gigatonnes of water1, and contributed to catastrophic floods of the Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers. Pollution is accelerating the melt. An 'Asian brown cloud', formed from the 2 million tonnes of soot and dark particles released into the atmosphere every year, mostly from India and China, warms the air and surface ice2. ...
That is one reason I am backing the scientists.
When and where have you ever done that.
Every time that I say the scientist need more time and the computer models working.
What we do know is that the earth heats up first.
Now you are being very, very silly - and once again exposing the fact that you DO NOT get your information from scientists! Please do explain how you believe Earth heats up first. The Ice Cores is some of the best climate data facts we have available to date. The ice core data shows the climate cycles and CO2 amounts. The data always shows the earth warming a couple hundred years before the CO2 rises. It is called the CO2 lag. And in the nine cycles in the last million years the lag has always been the same until now and the lag because of human actions has shorten the lag. Today we have the CO2 rising and the earth not heating at the rate predicted. That is why the scientists have been hunting for the missing heat. Why am I falling into this trap? This is no different than creation vs evolution. When it comes to dealing with facts you do a side step and sound just like the creationist did in their arguments.
Therefore there are two things causing Global Warming, Earth’s Cycle and mankind.
You haven't listened to a single word have you :smirk: How about trying to digest the concept that humanity is heating up Earth's natural cycles… it'll take you a lot further, if you are looking for understanding. I like your word smiting better, but we are saying the same thing.
What's loaded about significant to humanity's wellbeing?
You’re not answering the question or statements. Please review.
The glaciers in the Himalayas have not melted as predicted by they should have years ago.
Here again you repeat a sound bit of utter malicious willful ignorance - I will keep trying to be polite, but between you and me you are just another cynical fraud, you display not the slightest interest in actually incorporating new information into your understanding or outlook … but I'll say no more on that. The glacier predictions were so far out there, that even the IPCC took them out of their reports, remember. But that does not changed the fact that those predictions were published in papers, books and newscasts for the public to digest. So, accordingly there should be no glaciers in the Himalayas today.

Using National Geographic as a base line of what information is main stream.
National Geographic from 1976
Facts and data from 1976.
One drop from fairly warm times into full ice-age cold took place in Greenland 89,500 years ago – apparently in less than a hundred years.
Are there indeed cycles, some sort of cosmic time pulse, beating every 250 million years, and more recently every 100,000 years? Science simply does not yet know.
Has a return toward a cooler climate begun?
Are we now at the end of a cycle?
Or is the present-day northern cooling only a brief pause in that warming trend that began in the mid-1800’s?
Are there cycles at all in the climate?
Facts they will agree on.
Put any two climatologist together and that’s a subject certain to start a fight.
Oceans fall and rise about every 20,000 years.
Glaciers have a 2,500 year pulse and a cycle of little ice lasting 800 to 900 years.
We can’t predict statistically whether a climate change is likely in the near future –next year, next decade, next century. We must learn first why climate varies – what the major forces are and how they change, if indeed they change.
Sunlight is estimated to arrive at the rate of 230 trillion horsepower. It is assumed – but only assumed – to stay absolutely steady.
Energy in may vary for another reason, however – changes in the swing of our planet in space. Milankovitch postulated climatic cycles of roughly 95,000, 40,000 and 20,000 years. The first is close to the magic 100,000 year pulse of the ice age in which we still live. Scientists today do not dispute the orbital cycles but doubt that they alone control climate.
National Geographic from 1987
In the past million years there have been nine full glacial periods, separated by much shorter intergalactic, or warm spells. Each glacial period has lasted about 100,000 years and each interglacial cycle as little as 10,000 years.
National Geographic from 1998
In 1995, after years of intense study, the IPCC concluded that “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate."
Milankovitch cycles. Like a wobbling top, the spinning Earth does not keep a constant position in relation to the sun. According to these cycles we should be in the midst of a long period of cooling.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
My notes; National Geographic went from Global Warming to Climate Change in 1998. And has us in the middle of the Milankovitch Cycle instead of at the peak, where most of the charts and reports places us today. At this point the National Geographic stopped covering the progress of the scientists and moved to the weather affects mainly with animals and ice.
Now, thirty eight years later we have many new scientists with a new generation of thinking trying to figure out how the earth works and what effect the humans are having on the earth. And we still have not answered many of the basic questions that should be answered before we attempt to claim we know how it all works.
One way that was used for testing the data was to have the computers go back and match past weather periods. For example in a given date in time, Long Island had 300 feet of ice coverage. Make the computer models match that fact.
What some of the scientists are now saying is that past weather data may not be facts. So what can be used as a datum point for the past data as fact for a given date in time? They are saying that the ice cores and tree rings are good.
There is a new term many are not familiar with that is being taught to the new generations in the teacher’s guide put out by IPCC and that is “Anthropogenic" weather.
And the term anthropogenic has only been used once in the National Geographic back in 2005 in the article - “Anthropogenic Ocean Acidification Over the Twenty-First Century and Its Impact on Calcifying Organisms.”

What’s all that got to do with what we were talking about?
well at least so far as understanding the geophysics as scientists are learning about it and explaining.
As for the label thing who gives a rat’s a%% ?
How does it change anything about our global heat distribution engine?
PS

Therefore there are two things causing Global Warming, Earth’s Cycle and mankind.
You haven't listened to a single word have you :smirk: How about trying to digest the concept that humanity is heating up Earth's natural cycles… it'll take you a lot further, if you are looking for understanding.

Do you see the lag time between the main stream science thinking and where the public is?
CC, you’re so far ahead of the public with the AGW that most people will not be able to relate.
They might agree at first, but when they are presented with more facts and the story that includes the earth’s past, then they will question the AGW as being the main driving force of climate change.
What I was trying to show you is that even a main stream organization like National Geographic which is doing many stories on the effects of today’s weather around the world is staying out of the fight over which scientists are right.
The IPCC has embraced anthropogenic weather, which is a safe ground, because both sides agree that humans are changing the weather.
What I am having trouble with is your denial of the facts of the ice cores and tree rings.
The only true facts the scientists have that includes a good time table.
The fact that the last eight cycles had no AGW is a good indicator that this, the ninth cycle in the last million years would still be warming just as the past eight cycles.
And yes, we all agree that the AGW is accelerating the warming and increasing the warming.
Just how much, that is what we don’t know.
Where you are saying that all the warming has to do with the AGW and ignoring the only facts we have with true date line of the earth’s history.
That is where we disagree.

And yes, we all agree that the AGW is accelerating the warming and increasing the warming. Just how much, that is what we don’t know. Where you are saying that all the warming has to do with the AGW and ignoring the only facts we have with true date line of the earth’s history. That is where we disagree.
You're a comedian all right. Fodder for a post back home that's for sure. Here are some falsifiable examples for you to consider:
CO2-Ink Demonstration Dan Miller https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81FHVrXgzuA Uploaded on Mar 7, 2010 Dan Miller uses ink to demonstrate how CO2 can have a big impact on warming the earth even though it is a very small percent of the atmosphere. For more information on climate change, visit Dan's web site, http://ClimatePlace.org.
World Oil Consumption by Country https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3-HAuAoGHE - - - Published on Feb 2, 2013 It´s hard to grasp the amount of oil used. I hope this helps you to get an idea of how much oil the world uses, and how addicted we are to it. The numbers I present are actually to positive... The reality is even worse. Due to the recession the impression is that the demand for oil has decreased or at least flatened out the last few years. The statistics tell a different story. 2009: 84,4 million barrels per day 2010: 87,3 million barrels per day 2011: 88,4 million barrels per day 2012: 89,2 million barrels per day 2013: 90,0 million barrels per day (estimation) Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/steo/report/global_oil.cfm
You say you understand that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but golly gee, who knows if other things might not actually be causing warming… jeez aw schucks, 90,0 million barrels per day couldn't be major impactor and driver of the major changes we have been witnessing our weather patterns going through…. I imagine your rejoinder could be 'THAT's just an estimate" we don't know for sure
My notes; National Geographic went from Global Warming to Climate Change in 1998. And has us in the middle of the Milankovitch Cycle instead of at the peak, where most of the charts and reports places us today. At this point the National Geographic stopped covering the progress of the scientists and moved to the weather affects mainly with animals and ice.
Mike, What you did with National Geographic was quote mining with crazy-making in mind. You bring up stuff like the 70s conjectures about global cooling, without ever displaying the slightest interest in understanding what that was about, nor what was learned. You don't even seem to realize that pretty near every scientific report/study about aerosols and global cooling from the era, included the caveat about rising GHGs and that "there was theoretical reason to believe that current cooling "could" soon be outpacing global warming." Why no interest in those details? ~ ~ ~ This thing about the switch from Global Warming to Climate Change {a switch that was forced by the ruthless and unhinged attacks on "GlobalWarming" by Rupert and pals more than anything else} - But more importantly. What in the world does that rhetorical devise have to do with understanding what's humanity is doing to our global climate system? Especially since the terms are synonymous. Mike, "Tells" like that make clear you are a 'Free-Marketeer' and learning is the least of your interests. You believe you've got something to protect, but the jokes on you. Time is the boss now.
What I am having trouble with is your denial of the facts of the ice cores and tree rings. The only true facts the scientists have that includes a good time table. The facts that the last eight cycles had no AGW is a good indicator that this, the ninth cycle in the last million years would still be warming just as the past eight cycles.
What facts????? You have tossed labels around that contain disjointed facts, without ever talking about what's behind those facts. {Besides you leave out ocean and lake sediments, I'm thinking those are the best after ice cores}. And those glacial periods are plenty well understood these days. There are no great swaths of Terra Incognita in our understanding of the fundamental of our our global heat distribution engine, or our biosphere's carrying capacity. I just reread that: You have trouble with what? you don't come close to trying to explain it. What are you having trouble with?
Do you see the lag time between the main stream science thinking and where the public is? CC, you’re so far ahead of the public with the AGW that most people will not be able to relate.
Either you haven't read or thought about a word I've written, or you are deliberately obtuse and into stretching the cynical game as far a possible, rather then getting down to looking at and understanding the facts. I am not "far out ahead of the public" I have a high school education, with part-time community college courses here and there - everything I've discovered or learn, could have been co-discovered and learned by any intelligent lay-person - the only prerequisite was a true interest in understanding our planet, it's evolution, along with trying to appreciate our place within it. I'm no genius, and I'd suggest the only difference between me and those far behind in the learning is that I just never drank the Reaganomics Kool-Aid thus I didn't get lost in Hollywood projections with their "Free Market" fantasy that Malthus was an idiot, Greed is Good and too much was never enough. Nor did I get lost in the certitude that I/we had a direct line to the God Almighty of Creation and Time and that he wanted us to make war on everyone who stood in our way. Well kids, limitless growth is cancer and it kills. And believing you're better than other humans only creates a cycles of destruction and varying levels of hell, as your War on Terror so ably demonstrates. Mike, Why not turn the question around for change - look at this public and ask why are they not interested in trying to understand, the substance of what scientists have learned about our life supporting planet, it's biosphere and global weather machine? It's all been out there since the seventies - everyone could have been witness to the pageant of the scientific arc of quality authoritative learning that has been prodigious these past decades. But, then Faith-based Christians and Muslims and Jews and others only understand the authority of the man in their heads and "Free Marketeers" only understand greed. With an interest in our one and only life sustain Earth being the last of their petty little interests. ~ ~ ~
They might agree at first, but when they are presented with more facts and the story that includes the earth’s past,{ALL of that is out there for those willing to look at it >:-( } then they will question the AGW as being the main driving force of climate change.
Ah yes, let the "debate" continue - allow the crazy-maker to step in with lies and deliberate misunderstand in order to keep every one totally confused. >:(

Go smoke a joint, before you blow a hose. :coolsmile:
I am sorry that you are blinded by what so many of us understand as the questions that need answered.
They are simple and basic questions. Like, how come charts of the earth’s climate cycles shows the earth heats up and then several hundred years later the carbon increases. All you have to do is look at the charts that show the earth’s climate cycles for the last million years.
Now we have to add AGW into the equation. Mankind has caused a carbon increase and the scientists predicted how the carbon was going to heat the earth in an accelerated rate. They were wrong, and have been looking for the missing heat for years now.
Since the scientists do not have enough data to show exactly where the earth is in the natural climate cycle. They have to compare this, the ninth cycle in the last million years to the last eight cycles. The tolerance is so great that it is hard for the scientists to agree on any one set of numbers.
Upon finding the natural cycle then the scientists have to figure in the AGW numbers. And this is where they really disagree. It would be nice to know what those numbers are today, but the truth is that we will not get those numbers until the computer models are up and working. Al Gore’s charts predictions did not happen. But what did happen the political machine saw a chance and took it to fill their bank accounts upon AGW scare.
Now we all understand that the AGW will be here as long as mankind has a huge population on earth. And we understand that the greenhouse gases will cause warming. How much, we don’t know at this time.
We trusted the scientists to answer a couple simple questions about their own data and give us ballpark numbers and the public was willing to give full backing. I have ask you CC, to answer those simple questions. And that is one part of these post you totally ignore.
With unanswered question on their own data, I for one feel it is best to wait five years for the data from the computers and not create thousands of billionaires, new taxes and help create the one world order on unproven data.
You are screaming Armageddon, but in the overall picture of people and scientists who are informed and directly involved at the upper levels, they are not taking the actions that one would expect when dealing with Armageddon.

I’m intrigued with your expertise on climatology, Mike. Perhaps you should apply for a job at NOAA and give the scientific community the benefit of your knowledge.

Go smoke a joint, before you blow a hose.
Are you thinking if I get high as a kite that your deliberate lies will make more sense?
You are screaming Armageddon
I never have you misinformer! Armageddon is for kids with too much God cluttering up their ego-centric little gray cells. :smirk: We're talking simple extinction at the rate we're going, of course it won't happen the day after tomorrow, but a little respect for the trends we are witnessing, along with appreciation of what trends mean and the reality of simple math such as accumulating compounding interest, and such rational facts of life.
Now we all understand that the AGW will be here as long as mankind has a huge population on earth. And we understand that the greenhouse gases will cause warming. How much, we don’t know at this time. We trusted the scientists to answer a couple simple questions about their own data and give us ballpark numbers and the public was willing to give full backing. I have ask you CC, to answer those simple questions. And that is one part of these post you totally ignore.
If you were to give the scientific information a serious, good-faith review you would find those numbers available. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I think you'll find what you are looking for under #11 and #12 But, you know considering that you haven't taken one thing I've shared into consideration, what's the point? That's the frustrating thing about trying to communicate with contrarian such as you MikeYohe - it's a total one way dialogue nothing is received on your end and nothing new is processed, and the conversation is about as constructive as a dog chasing it's tail - stick with the party and ignore all else seems your motto. :down:
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ IPCC 2013 - Chapters 1. Introduction 4.5MB - Contributors 2. Observations: Atmosphere and Surface 38.3MB - Contributors Supplementary Material 1.5MB 3. Observations: Ocean 48.3MB - Contributors 4. Observations: Cryosphere 12.8MB - Contributors Supplementary Material 0.4MB 5. Information from Paleoclimate Archives 10.7MB - Contributors 6. Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles 23.8MB - Contributors Supplementary Material 4MB 7. Clouds and Aerosols 19.2MB - Contributors Supplementary Material 0.1MB 8. Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing 18.9MB - Contributors Supplementary Material 15.9MB 9. Evaluation of Climate Models 24.6MB - Contributors 10. Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional 10.4MB - Contributors Supplementary Material 1.3MB 11. Near-term Climate Change: Projections and Predictability 14.1MB - Contributors 12. Long-term Climate Change: Projections, Commitments and Irreversibility 36.3MB - Contributors 13. Sea Level Change 32.9MB - Contributors Supplementary Material 0.1MB 14. Climate Phenomena and their Relevance for Future Regional Climate Change 10.6MB - Contributors Supplementary Material 1.9MB
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ten Charts That Make Clear The Planet Just Keeps Warming http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/15/1014151/ten-charts-that-make-clear-the-planet-just-keeps-warming/ http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/10/response-to-david-rose-global-warming-has-stopped http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ As for your insinuation regarding what Gore said, I notice you don't offer any specific quotes nor references, meaning you aren't interested in teaching anyone anything - it's all about repeating propaganda lines oblivious to their substance or implications.
Now we all understand that the AGW will be here as long as mankind has a huge population on earth. And we understand that the greenhouse gases will cause warming. How much, we don’t know at this time. We trusted the scientists to answer a couple simple questions about their own data and give us ballpark numbers and the public was willing to give full backing. I have ask you CC, to answer those simple questions. And that is one part of these post you totally ignore.
If you were to give the scientific information a serious, good-faith review you would find those numbers available. No, I have not found the numbers. And either has the IPCC in thirty-eight years of trying to find the answer!
I think you'll find what you are looking for under #11 and #12 But, you know considering that you haven't taken one thing I've shared into consideration, what's the point? That's the frustrating thing about trying to communicate with contrarian such as you MikeYohe - it's a total one way dialogue nothing is received on your end and nothing new is processed, and the conversation is about as constructive as a dog chasing it's tail - stick with the party and ignore all else seems your motto. :down:
No, not there. Please try again.
Ten Charts That Make Clear The Planet Just Keeps Warming http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/10/15/1014151/ten-charts-that-make-clear-the-planet-just-keeps-warming/ http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/10/response-to-david-rose-global-warming-has-stopped http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-intermediate.htm
In post #6 you’re right on target. How about trying to digest the concept that humanity is heating up Earth’s natural cycles… You admitted the earth is in a natural cycle. So stop beating a dead horse on warming. I had a barbecue yesterday, so maybe I am causing the Global Warming. Stop running in circles and show me how the carbon lag works in heating the earth. And not just on a small scale like my barbecue, but the real McCoy.
As for your insinuation regarding what Gore said, I notice you don't offer any specific quotes nor references, meaning you aren't interested in teaching anyone anything - it's all about repeating propaganda lines oblivious to their substance or implications.
Come ‘on now, get real. Al’s charts showed that the earth heated then the carbon rise followed. That what started this carbon lag questioning in the first place. But Al’s charts seemed to be correct on the carbon lag, the climate cycles have been doing just that for the last million years. The only part of Al’s charts that were incorrect was when the carbon increased the amount of earth’s temperature rise did not happen as predicted. Thus, the missing heat. So, we all understand that Al’s numbers need adjusting. This requires a datum line to work from. And that datum line should be the earth’s natural 100k warming cycles which have left clues on earth in the ice cores and hidden in different areas of nature that the scientists are today figuring out. And a lot of that research is on the carbon lag.