In a revelation that deals a serious blow to the already-bogus claims of climate change deniers, top scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) declared this week that the so-called "hiatus" in global warming—some have called it a "Faux Pause"—was never a real thing.
We are going to look like such idiots to the next several generations. They're going to look at the fossil and historical record of the forests we cut, the soil we turned into desert, and the hundreds of million years of sequestered hydrocarbons we burnt and let up the smokestacks, and wonder why we thought changing the face of the earth would not change the thin layer of atmosphere around it.
It's sad to be a part of a species smart enough to do enough to affect a thousand lifetimes to come in our one, without the people in charge thinking about that.
Haven't a large number of climatologists said that the 14 hottest years (world, not US) since records have been kept have all occurred in the 21st century? I'm going to side with them.
My wife returned to her village in the Philippines last month, as her mother passed away. Half of her village is now under water. Her mother had to be transported as the graveyard is now under water. Yet back in Australia, Prime Minister Tony Abbott insists that global warming is a lie. If you made this shit up, people would say you had a fertile imagination.
Actually, the only thing that has been proven is that in a small subset of ocean surface temperature readings where there was a known buoy and a ship in close proximity, the shipboard measurements tend to be higher. The scientists extrapolated their findings back over decades of measurements, assuming similar results with all measurements, to show their results. As with all science, this discovery raises more questions than it answers. 1) Is the number of buoy/ship coincidental measurements statistically significant in comparison to the total number of measurements? 2) Are the differences the same across all measurements? 3) How do you possibly control for differences in equipment, calibration of that equipment, and measurement error? 4) are the differences the same regardless of location? If not, why? 5) are the differences the same across time, or does more modern equipment have an impact? 6) how close does the ship have to be to the buoy to be considered coincident? 7) How has time of day been factored into coincidence? 8) How do the adjusted (now cooler) temperatures affect the overall warming result? 9) are the new temperature profiles consistent with the thousands of other assumptions in the massive climate models?
I could go on for hours, but hopefully you get the point: little has been proven here. Far from being settled, there's a lot more science to be done here.
The excuses and the red herrings in this discussion have become comedic. To offer any pretence suggesting that humanity and its fossil-fueled recklessness has done other than destruction is shameful.
Intelligent maturity has lost its fight to protect the well being of the planet.
Truth is not a function of funding and yet we have trapped our selves into making truth captive in such terms.
Excellent comment, DerrekMaddox. Thank you for helping everyone understand how scientific reasoning works. Thousands of good scientists are asking these types of questions every day and, so far, the preponderance of evidence indicates, with extremely high probability, that anthropogenic global warming is occurring and will continue unless something significant changes.
I share your passion and hopefully that passion gets transformed into some form of action -- whether it be at the level of the individual, group, community, state, etc. Words, ideas, well-reasoned arguments are wonderful things but when allowed to sit idly and collect dust -- whilst being repeated over and over again without positive changes being implemented -- begin to lose their impact. Unfortunately the science of climate change/AGW became politicized -- rendering the "truth" (as we understand it) -- as well as statistically significant, verifiable information from reliable sources (ie: "facts") -- irrelevant. The interests of those with power and wealth superseded substantive discussion, leading to corrupted systems, institutions and laws -- and patently absurd arguments -- all fueled by ignorance and selfishness. Their desire is to keep everything the same in a constantly changing world.
This is now the middle of 2015, we've had a rudimentary understanding of AGW since the middle of the 20th century, the damage continues to mount without regard to the consequences and virtually all scientific worst-case scenarios are deemed to be extremely "conservative".
Humans have now reached an impasse on everything from environmental contamination, to polarization of wealth and power, to unsubstantiated waging of wars, to an obsession with terrorism, to debates over religious dogma vs science, to increasing population growth despite depleting world resources, to delusions about a zygote being a human being -- ergo making contraception -- murder.
You're right: it would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.
Just watch the Alpine glaciers, the Arctic sea-ice and the ice-shelves of Antarctica, together with the Greenland ice-cap and the Arctic tundra and their response to the anthropogenic increase of CO2 in the atmosphere (40% since around 1890). There is no scientific ambiguity about their response.
What next several generations?
Thank you DM and thank the Spaghetti Monster you didn't go on for hours with this thread of scientific nonsense and twaddle.
Oh, and fake_french, I'm squarely behind your recommendation that one attend Guy McPherson's warm and caring delivery of the excruciatingly dismal news which he selflessly strives to provide to the people of our dying world.