What do I expect? I expect that if someone is going start accusing other of not living up to church teaching they should actually be able point out the teaching being violate. Not use vague statements like “I think this document assumes this…”My reading of it 2 years ago gave me the impression that it simply accepts GW as a scientific fact (since it is indeed a fact), and then goes about church business of explaining how we should deal with this fact.
In addition, since skeptics out of hand have been rejecting whatever JPII and BXVI have said about GW, it presented quite a good explanation of GW so as to instruct those who didn’t know much about it. The US Bishops have also said in 2002 that we must mitigate CC even if we are not sure of the science, prudence requires it of us.
What else to you expect of a Church encyclical? It’s not written by God Himself, tho God did “author” creation, which the scientists study and find out about, and now have found out about CC.
As JPII said Truth (God) cannot deny truth (what the scientists find to be facts).
Maybe it would be a good idea for people to meditate and pray to God to give them enlightenment and the real God’s truth on this issue. I have engaged in such, and it does help. It never hurts to pray.
No one anticipated that the deeper ocean would uptake the amount of warming it did (they base the warming stats on surface temps), but they knew that it could (even as early as in a 1988 paper by Hansen).
I guess the problem for scientists is that they need a better way to predict when these short-term variables will be kicking in and out.
To his credit, Hansen would include a hypothetical volcanic eruption (with cooling effect) in his projections, and he was fairly accurate in his projections.
Hansen retired some years ago, but he most certainly is a climate scientist and his 1981 article in SCIENCE pretty accurately projects the actual GW of today, even tho there are mistakes in both directions due to less knowledge re it at the time; in fact he somewhat underestimates the warming of today.Lynn,
The excuse that global warming is hiding in the deep oceans has been proven false,
thanks to solid research and data collection (Argo floats).
The problem for scientists is sticking to the actual science, which is why few people of merit consider Hansen a scientist.
I expect any scientist to account for all the factors affecting the variable he is measuring. The alarmists focused on CO2 to the virtual exclusion of other contributors.So you expect climate scientists to be God and know exactly when an el nino or volcanic eruption will happen and whether these will be stronger than usual, beyond knowing that they will happen occasionally.
You’re mixing issues. Everyone recognizes warming has occurred; that’s not the issue. There are two questions: has there been a 19 year hiatus in warming, and what was the cause of the warming we have experienced.Just looking at the longer time-frame takes care of all your issues, since it shows warming over a 30 year time frame (choose any start or end point you wish).
The paper evaluated fourteen different temperature data bases going back to 1959. What it found was that essentially all of the warming in all of the data was accounted for by the natural contributions from solar, ENSO, and volcanic sources.I didn’t read the paper you cited, but I’m betting their time frame is less than 30 years – it would have to be if they picked 1998 or even 1995 as their start year. Come back in 2025 and tell me whether or not there has been warming since 1995 caused by the enhanced GH effect.
So, ocean heat intake was known about in the '80s but only started working this century? If ocean heating is the cause of the warming hiatus, why did it just start hiding heat this century? And if there is no hiatus why is the ocean being used as the excuse to explain a phenomenon that didn’t occur?[Hansen] also shows various scenarios re ocean heat intake at various depths – so it was an issue known about then, as it is now very much an issue, partly responsible for ENSO oscillations. I think only the skeptic henchmen are making false claims about ocean heat capacity.
He has been doing that the whole thread. And simply ignores it when pointed out.You’re mixing issues. Everyone recognizes warming has occurred; that’s not the issue.
Here is a chart that actually shows Hansen’s 1988 predictions vs actual temperatures. Since our outcomes are aligning with his scenario of zero increase in CO2, his models are obviously in gross error.Hansen retired some years ago, but he most certainly is a climate scientist and his 1981 article in SCIENCE pretty accurately projects the actual GW of today, even tho there are mistakes in both directions due to less knowledge re it at the time; in fact he somewhat underestimates the warming of today.
See:
He also shows various scenarios re ocean heat intake at various depths – so it was an issue known about then, as it is now very much an issue, partly responsible for ENSO oscillations. I think only the skeptic henchmen are making false claims about ocean heat capacity.
See:
Your data is outdatedLynn those graphs are obvious deflections with the overlay of temp.
The diversion point between predicted and actual is showing in the late 60’s, well before Hansen published in the late 80’s.
Yes, Hansen was employed as a scientist but he’s lost much of his credibility for the shenanigan’s he’s employed and his hyperbole.
Here is a chart that actually shows Hansen’s 1988 predictions vs actual temperatures. Since our outcomes are aligning with his scenario of zero increase in CO2, his models are obviously in gross error.
https://i1.wp.com/kaltesonne.de/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/hansen.gif
wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/15/james-hansens-climate-forecast-of-1988-a-whopping-150-wrong/
…a new study published Thursday (June 04, 2015) in the journal Science by top climate researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) aims a kill shot at the hiatus once and for all. Led by Thomas R. Karl, who directs NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) in Asheville, North Carolina, scientists say that the so-called pause in warming during that period was an artifact of improperly adjusted surface-temperature data.Your data is outdated
Global warming slowdown never happened, federal study says
…but we now know it was the deep oceans that were responsible for the hiatus that didn’t happen. That science is settled.…a new study published Thursday (June 04, 2015) in the journal Science by top climate researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) aims a kill shot at the hiatus once and for all.
Yes, the ARGO floats showed that excuse for the hiatus was just wishful thinking. The missing heat is not hiding in the oceans, yet they still insist the models are good,…but we now know it was the deep oceans that were responsible for the hiatus that didn’t happen. That science is settled.
Ender
This is an excellent example of why so many people simply don’t trust what is being passed off as science. The key phrase above is the reference to data that was “improperly adjusted.” What NOAA presented was an analysis of (sea) surface temperatures based on a set of adjustments that just happened to come up with this conclusion: there was no hiatus. Now there are a lot of reasons why raw data has to be adjusted, and adjustments themselves are not intrinsically bogus, but there is certainly reason to be suspicious of any study that purports to resolve a serious problem (viz. the hiatus) by simply making it disappear.Global warming slowdown never happened, federal study says…a new study published Thursday (June 04, 2015) in the journal Science by top climate researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) aims a kill shot at the hiatus once and for all. Led by Thomas R. Karl, who directs NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) in Asheville, North Carolina, scientists say that the so-called pause in warming during that period was an artifact of improperly adjusted surface-temperature data.
Way back in 2014 there were already over 60 published excuses to explain away the hiatus.This is an excellent example of why so many people simply don’t trust what is being passed off as science. The key phrase above is the reference to data that was “improperly adjusted.” What NOAA presented was an analysis of (sea) surface temperatures based on a set of adjustments that just happened to come up with this conclusion: there was no hiatus. Now there are a lot of reasons why raw data has to be adjusted, and adjustments themselves are not intrinsically bogus, but there is certainly reason to be suspicious of any study that purports to resolve a serious problem (viz. the hiatus) by simply making it disappear.
It’s not as if scientists haven’t been studying the pause and trying rather desperately to explain it - there must be 40-50 scientific hypotheses presented that ostensibly do just that. Are we now to believe all that work was done only because the original data was “improperly adjusted”? It seems more reasonable that the pause was real and that it is NOAA’s new data that was “improperly adjusted.”
Ender
You linked to an image that shows outdated dataYou are deflecting, I was responding to graphs on hansen’s predictions.
I never even mentioned the word ‘pause’
What science do you have to backup what you imagine to have been manipulated?I’m well aware of the facts, and how they have been manipulated to push the CAGW agenda, which continues to crumble as valid research is conducted
Hansen made inaccurate predictions. I read a recent report that he has backed away from some of his predictions especially the ones on timing.Your linked paper proposes further manipulation of the temperature record to explain away the pause in warming, it still doesn’t show Hansen’s projections were accurate.
Sorry, I missed the post with your CERN can you re-post the link.(did you follow up on that CERN link I provided you yet?)
Hardly, the temp record isn’t outdated and the projections are valid for those assumptions. Your comment is an unsupported attempt to dismiss and deflectYou linked to an image that shows outdated data.
The media is constantly manipulating the published research. What I have noticed is there is much research on the severe outcomes associated with the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario. The research is by itself valid, but the media fails to present the other emission scenarios or mention that we are already below this emissions scenario. The media uses valid research to fan alarmism.What science do you have to backup what you imagine to have been manipulated?
Hansen made inaccurate predictions. I read a recent report that he has backed away from some of his predictions especially the ones on timing.
You are conflating issues, I’m referring to the recent paper you keep linking. Their proposal may or may not be adopted. And timing is the key element in the whole discussion. The policy response to warming over several centuries is very different than if it occurs over two decades.You appear to believe that when science corrects itself it’s a bad thing and it’s really about motives.
CLOUD shows pre-industrial skies cloudier than we thoughtSorry, I missed the post with your CERN can you re-post the link.
He did overstate the problem of CC I think in 2008 (but not in a peer-reviewed study), but he then retracted it. He is a great scientist, a wonderful person, and a hero to me – despite all the slander from the CC denialist community.Lynn those graphs are obvious deflections with the overlay of temp.
The diversion point between predicted and actual is showing in the late 60’s, well before Hansen published in the late 80’s.
Yes, Hansen was employed as a scientist but he’s lost much of his credibility for the shenanigan’s he’s employed and his hyperbole.
That’s because the argument of hysterical man-made climate change is now burnt toast.He has been doing that the whole thread. And simply ignores it when pointed out.
I believe that the climate scientists who are actually doing research would disagree with you.Hardly, the temp record isn’t outdated and the projections are valid for those assumptions. Your comment is an unsupported attempt to dismiss and deflect
Also, you keep posting to a paper that **PROPOSES **further changes to the temp record, nothing that’s been adopted. Your paper is conjecture that has not been adopted.
You are conflating the media with scientific publications and appealing to an unsubstantiated motive which is an fallacy.The media is constantly manipulating the published research. What I have noticed is there is much research on the severe outcomes associated with the RCP 8.5 emissions scenario. The research is by itself valid, but the media fails to present the other emission scenarios or mention that we are already below this emissions scenario. The media uses valid research to fan alarmism.
Thanks for re-postingThe CERN research is applying actual science to the feedbacks used in our climate models. Their research is showing the assumed feedbacks are too high.
I believe that the climate scientists who are actually doing research would disagree with you.
Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus
TR Karl, A Arguez, B Huang, JH Lawrimore… - …, 2015 - science.sciencemag.org
… 1), providing further evidence against the notion of a recent warming “hiatus” (supplementary
materials). Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s NCEI
do not support the notion of a global warming “hiatus.” As shown in Fig. …
Cited by 234 Related articles
Source…
You are conflating the media with scientific publications and appealing to an unsubstantiated motive which is an fallacy.