Like I said, there was no pause....... Scientists have long labored to explain what appeared to be a slowdown inglobal warming that began at the start of this century as, at the same time, heat-trapping emissions of carbon dioxide were soaring. The slowdown, sometimes inaccurately described as a halt or hiatus, became a major talking point for people critical of climate science. Now, new research suggests the whole thing may have been based on incorrect data. When adjustments are made to compensate for recently discovered problems in the way global temperatures were measured, the slowdown largely disappears, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration declared in a scientific paper published Thursday. And when the particularly warm temperatures of 2013 and 2014 are averaged in, the slowdown goes away entirely, the agency said. “The notion that there was a slowdown in global warming, or a hiatus, was based on the best information we had available at the time,” said Thomas R. Karl, director of the National Centers for Environmental Information, a NOAA unit in Asheville, N.C. “Science is always working to improve.” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/05/s...on®ion=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well&_r=0
They used to say that you could have your own opinion, but you couldn't have your own facts. Now the global warming hoaxers just go ahead and create their own facts. It's called 'adjusted temperature data'.
About 20,000 years ago the earth was in an ice age. During the ice age sea temperatures were lower than they are now. In the thousands of years since then, sea temperatures have risen as I stated above. You're right that over the last 1000 years sea temperatures have indeed been decreasing but my comment was about thousands of years, not "one thousand" years. But let's explore your admission that until recently, temperatures have, on average, been decreasing over the last 1000 years. First, the earth has never exhibited a particularly dangerous (i.e. dangerous to man) tendency towards higher temperatures. Right now we're close to about as warm as it gets. On the other hand the earth spends most of its time in much lower temperatures and these would be far more damaging to man than a few degrees C higher. A return to an ice age would deeply reduce the amount of food people could grow on the planet. Some scientists have published papers suggesting that the only thing preventing the earth from drifting into another ice age is the CO2 that man has injected into the atmosphere. If this is the effect, it's a good thing (for us) that we're doing it. Here's the BBC report on this effect, from which you can find the peer reviewed literature on the subject (this one cited here was published at Nature Geoscience): Carbon emissions 'will defer Ice Age' Richard Black, Environment Correspondent, BBC News January 9, 2012 "We must look to a sustained greenhouse effect to maintain the present advantageous world climate. This implies the ability to inject effective greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the opposite of what environmentalists are erroneously advocating." http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-16439807 The alarmist replies I've seen to the above say that (even if it's true) the ice age can only be postponed for a few hundred years because the fossil fuels will run out. However, estimates of the amount of fossil fuels available keep getting increased. I remember 30 years ago people were talking about "peak oil". Of course they had no idea that the technology for tight oil and oil sands would develop. And those technologies allow far greater amounts of fossil fuels to be used. And for the very long term, surely that's a problem that the science of 500 years from now can solve a lot more easily than we can solve our present problems. That goes triple for the economic problems we would have if we halted the use of the fossil fuels that underpin our entire economic system. And it's not at all obvious that halting (or reducing) the use of fossil fuels would improve the environment. Look at what ethanol has done. Vast tracts of lands that once were left fallow are now being factory farmed for ethanol. If we convert to using biomass you will see factory farms devoted to that. Hey, if we invent a method of turning inexpensive biomass into valuable fuel what do you think will happen to the remaining rain forest??? Of course they will be converted into fuel and then replanted with factory farms devoted to producing biomass for biofuels. This is what humans do; when they find a way of exploiting the natural world, they exploit it. But does it really matter? When the next ice age takes control, the planet will become a lot drier and much of that rainforest will dry up anyway (and much of the boreal forests the environmentalists are protecting from oil drilling up in Alaska will be utterly destroyed by spreading ice sheet). If you want to see the earth with biodiversity, you want to avoid returning to an ice age. Fossil fuels are your only chance.
Scientists destroy another climate denier myth: Rising CO2 levels aren’t good for plants In a 40-year study, the benefits of increased CO2 couldn't make up for the harmful impacts of a changed climate
Doesn't this support those who have been saying that water vapor is the biggest contribuor to "green house gases".
NOAA Study Confirms Global Warming Speed-Up Is Imminent http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/05/3666286/global-warming-speed-up/
‘It Is Climate Change': India’s Heat Wave Now The 5th Deadliest In World History http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/02/3665123/india-heat-wave-5th-deadliest/
The next ice age is due tens of thousands of years from now. Man made global warming is already a problem and will get much much worse within a hundred. Why you are concerned about something tens of thousands of years from now but not the current problem is a mystery. Unless one just assumes that you are just another deluded sheep-like right winger. Now I am not saying that you are for sure, but everything you have written so far on the subject leads me to suspect it.
No. But I for one never argued otherwise. Water vapor is a very important GHG, up there with CO2. Whether it is the biggest contributor or the most important is up for debate and depends on how one looks at it. It acts to amplify the effect of other GHGs because as they rise and temps rise so does water vapor which adds to the warming. Of course it also means that more water is now available to fall from the sky. However, water vapor is somewhat self-limiting whereas CO2 is not and because of this it is CO2 levels, not water vapor that mostly determines the temp of the earth.
Is this another example of you rejecting science in favor of stock trend analysis, LOL? Try to bring a citation to a science discussion next time. Here's a recent, peer reviewed article that completely contradicts your naive unsubstantiated claim: Determining the Natural Length of the Current Interglacial Tzedakis, Channell, Hodell, Kleiven and Skinner Nature Geoscience 5, 138-141 (2012) No glacial inception is projected to occur at the current atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 390 ppmv (ref. 1). ... Assuming that ice growth mainly responds to insolation and CO2 forcing, this analogy suggests that the end of the current interglacial would occur within the next 1500 years, if atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not exceed 240±5ppmv. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n2/full/ngeo1358.html