The record global warming streak of 2014-2016: a snowball’s chance in hell that this was natural

By Tom Yulsman | August 11, 2017 1:30 pm
This map from NASA shows the pattern of unusual, record-setting warmth between 2014 and 2016, compared to the long-term average. (Source: NASA GISS)

This map from NASA shows the pattern of unusual, record-setting warmth between 2014 and 2016, compared to the long-term average. (Source: NASA GISS)

Okay, I admit that I don’t really know the odds of a snowball surviving in hell. But a new study suggests that’s an apt way of describing the chances that 2014 through 2016’s record-setting heat was natural.

The study finds that there was a 1 in 3,000 chance that natural causes alone were to blame for the sequence of three consecutive global warming records set in 2014, 2015 and 2016.

The long-term trend in global temperature. I've circled the record-setting years of 2014-2016.

The long-term trend in global temperature. I’ve circled the record-setting years of 2014-2016.

When humankind’s influence on the climate is taken into account, the odds rise dramatically. In that case there is a 1 to 3 percent chance of such a record-breaking streak occurring, according to the study, published yesterday in the Journal Geophysical Research Letters.

While those chances are still quite small, 1 in a hundred is clearly a hell of a lot more likely than 1 in 3,000. Also consider this: When a longer period of time is considered, the picture changes quite dramatically. The odds of the streak occurring at some point between the year 2000 and 2016 are 20 to 50 percent with human-caused warming accounted for, according to the study, led by Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University. Without anthropogenic warming? Just 0.7 percent.

If there were any doubts that 2016 was indeed the warmest on record, the annual State of the Climate Report, also published yesterday, should erase them.

Prepared by nearly 500 scientists from more than 60 nations, and based on tens of thousands of measurements from multiple, independent datasets, the report confirmed that 2016 did indeed surpass 2015 as the warmest year in 137 years of record keeping. And 2015, you might recall, broke the previous record set just the year prior in 2014, thus making for that streak of three record-setting years in a row.

state-of-the-climate-2016-global-surface-temperature-map

The pattern of unusual warmth in 2016 is revealed in the map, which shows how temperatures varied from the long-term average. (Source: NOAA Climate.gov)

The long-term trend of human-caused warming combined with an extremely strong El Niño event early in the year to produce 2016’s record-setting warmth, according to the report, published as a supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Also, as a summary from NOAA puts it:

The report found that the major indicators of climate change continued to reflect trends consistent with a warming planet. Several markers such as land and ocean temperatures, sea level, and greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere broke records set just one year prior.

Here’s a visual look at some of the markers mentioned by NOAA:

Greenhouse gases

state-of-the-climate-2016-carbon-dioxide-graph

The small squiggles in this graph charting the trend in the atmosphere’s concentration of carbon dioxide are the result of a natural seasonal cycle. Human emissions of CO2 from fossil-fuel burning and other activities is the cause of the long-term rising trend. (Source: NOAA Climate.gov, adapted from State of the Climate in 2016)

According to NOAA’s summary:

Major greenhouse gas concentrations, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, and nitrous oxide, rose to new record high values during 2016.

The global average concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere for the year was 402.9 parts per million. This is higher than it has been in at least 800,000 years. But the even bigger news here, I thought, was that the increase in CO2 over 2015’s average value: 3.5 parts per million. This is the largest annual increase observed in the 58-year record.

We’re not yet on a good path for mitigating climate change.

Sea surface temperatures

state-of-the-climate-2016-sea-surface-temperature-anomalies-map

The global average temperature of the sea surfaces was highest on record in 2016. Moreover the rate of warming between 2000 and 2016 was much higher than the longer-term warming trend. From NOAA:

The more recent global sea surface temperature trend for the 21st century-to-date (2000–2016) of +2.92°F (1.62°C) per century is much higher than the longer term (1950–2016) warming trend of +1.8°F (1.0°C) per century.

Sea level rise

warming

The pattern of sea level around the globe in 2016, compared to the long-term average. (Source: NOAA Climate.gov)

Just as atmospheric and sea-surface temperatures set records, so did sea level in 2016, according to the State of the Climate report. Sea level, according to NOAA’s summary:

. . . was about 3.25 inches (82 mm) higher than the 1993 average, the year that marks the beginning of the satellite altimeter record. This also marks the sixth consecutive year global sea level has increased compared to the previous year. Over the past two decades, sea level has increased at an average rate of about 0.13 inch (3.4 mm) per year, with the highest rates of increase in the western Pacific and Indian Oceans.

Extreme Precipitation and Drought

The pattern of extreme moisture and drought during 2016.

The pattern of extreme moisture and drought during 2016.

When it came to precipitation, 2016 brought noteworthy extremes at both ends of the spectrum, as the map above shows. Long-term, human-caused climate change along with El Niño led to both extreme flooding and drought during the year. According to NOAA’s summary of the 2016 report:

In addition to many parts of the globe experiencing major floods in 2016, for any given month at least 12 percent of global land was experiencing at least “severe” drought conditions, the longest such stretch in the record.

Here’s how human-caused warming is implicated:

It has amped up our planet’s hydrologic system by evaporating more moisture into the atmosphere. In some regions, this can dry soils, setting up conditions conducive to drought.

At the same time, increased evaporation provides more water vapor to condense into rain and snow. And in other regions, this can lead to more intense precipitation.

For broad swaths of the Northern Hemisphere, this process has indeed led to a well documented increase in precipitation since 1901, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

As for the United States, the 2014 National Climate Assessment found “a clear national trend toward a greater amount of precipitation being concentrated in very heavy events.’

As a science journalist who has covered this issue since my first story in 1984, I find the evidence for human-caused climate change overwhelming and indisputable. And while I understand at an intellectual level why many people still deny this reality, it still boggles my mind.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Gallilao

    This has to be the most blatant and contrived piece of baseless fear mongering!

    Two years?

    Two Years?

    TWO YEARS?

    To even suggest that two years of anything constitutes any kind of trend is completely idiotic, nonsensical, ludicrous and stupid!

    You only find the evidence overwhelming because you are scientifically illiterate. If you understood the science you would know that there is no such thing as a GHG, so AGW is a lie and We and CO2 have nothing whatsoever to do with climate!

    Get an education.

    • diavi

      Yes, this is quite embarrassing.

      Still, we obviously are adding to, rather than maintaining, current CO2 levels by returning so much CO2 back to the atmosphere. Obviously, CO2 has been losing the battle of atmospheric balance for over 200 million years to plants and algae. It’s done nothing but decline when measured in million-year increments.

      This said, mammals evolved and grew gigantic with MORE CO2 so, obviously, it’s not a toxic substance to mammals. For the past 100 years all evidence shows deserts and tundra are receding as temperatures and rainfall increase — hardly a formula for extinction.

      Will oceans rise? Sure, why not.

      Will cutting back hydrocarbon supply negatively effect the billions of human reliant upon it? Absolutely, expect wars and genocide on a scale of hundreds of millions lives if we pull the energy rug from under the poorest inhabitants of the planet.

      So the REAL question is: What should we do about it?

      The answer is not so clear.

      • Gallilao

        A very refreshing, cogent and thoughtful post!

        The answer however is clearer than you think.

        Once you understand the hard science and understand that CO2 has no effect on climate and in fact, it is most desirable to produce as much CO2 as possible, so all those developing nations should be encouraged to burn fossil fuels, as long as they can do so in a nonpolluting way. No one need suffer and everyone and everything could thrive. The access to and use of energy, is what make nations wealthy and the increased CO2 makes the ecosystem work more and better.

        • CB

          “Once you understand… CO2 has no effect on climate”

          You’ve never gotten that far, Mr. Lao.

          It has been known for over a century that CO₂ has an effect on the climate.

          What evidence do you have that all scientists on Earth for all that time have all been wrong?

          That evidence would have to be quite strong for you to believe something so unlikely, right?

          “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

          climate.nasa.gov/evidence

      • OWilson

        It is very clear to Al Gore and the United Nations. Wealth re-distribution!

        They want to give Third World Genocidal Dictator “His Excellency” Robert Mugabe some $1,500,000,000.00 in “Climate Reparations”.

        And he is only one on a long waiting list! :)

      • Robert Mantel

        CO2 is not a poison, it is plant food.

    • Tom Yulsman

      Gallilao: You must not have read even the top few sentences of my story, or else you are simply illiterate. And you obviously never even got to the graph toward the top of the story showing the global temperature trend since 1880. In case it is too much trouble for you to do the math, that is a record of 137 years, not two.

      I do focus in part on a study looking at the odds that the record setting heat of 2014 through 2016 was natural. (Can you do the math? – 2014, 2015, 2016 is how many years?) But I put those years in the context of longer term climate change.

      You obviously are so blinded by ideology, anger and sheer ignorance that you can’t even read the plain English that is written on the page. So it is pointless to even try to have an adult conversation with you. And your snide “scientifically illiterate” and “get an education” swipes at me clearly are a matter of psychological projection.

      I also have to comment on your claim that greenhouse gases have “nothing whatsoever to do with climate.” This shows just how scientifically illiterate YOU are. The physical properties of greenhouse gases have been well-known since John Tyndall conducted ground-breaking experiments on the subject in 1859. (Not that you are interested or even capable of reading this, but just in case I’m wrong: https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Tyndall/). Bottom line: The properties and effects of greenhouse gases are a matter of objective fact, not theory.

      To conclude, here’s my headline for you: “A snowball stands a better chance of surviving in hell that Gallilao being capable of considering scientific evidence on climate change cooly, fairly and logically.”

      • Gallilao

        I did read the first few lines and it would appear that you are illiterate because you can’t even read what you wrote.

        Your first reference was to the two year period and no I didn’t bother to read to the bottom, it is so obviously a contrived nonsense.

        And before you bring up people like John Tyndall, maybe you should find out what he is famous for.

        His theory was disproved in 1856 by Eunice Foote.

        Those who live in glass houses, shouldn’t throw stones.

        • Tom Yulsman

          Get out your hand so you can count using your fingers. Now repeat each year out loud while lowering a finger. (You know where to find your fingers, right?) Here we go… 2014. (One finger.) 2015. (Two fingers.) 2016. (Three fingers.) All done? And how many fingers are down now?

          • Gallilao

            I can’t believe they allow an idiot like to publish!

          • Tom Yulsman

            “…an idiot like to publish.” Way to go Gallilao! You show your true colors. (And by the way, why don’t you tell us how many years 2014, 2015 and 2016 add up to? )

          • Gallilao

            Why don’t you tell us what those true colors are.
            You didn’t say, “2014, 2015 and 2016”, did you?????
            You are an idiot!

          • Tom Yulsman

            Do you speak English as a second language, Gallilao? That could explain your failure to understand the meaning of “2014 through 2016.”

          • Gallilao

            Yes, I did misunderstand your precise meaning but that doesn’t change the fact that your precise meaning is ridiculous! It is idiotic to suggest that a 3 year interval of weather could ever be considered a basis for determining a trend, either present or future.
            If we were to accept that these 3 years do indeed suggest a trend, then it is unambiguously obvious, that the trend is cresting and should soon start to fall. But it is complete nonsense.
            It is humanly impossible to know what the climate is doing at any time in the present or future. The weather changes so much from year to year, that it is only with a few million years of retrospective, that it is in anyway possible to grasp what the climate was doing at any point in the past.
            In my neighborhood, the last few years have been pretty nice and last year was phenomenal. I had been waiting for GW and was looking forward to more. It was so warm and local produce was exceptional. My neighbor’s cherry tree was so loaded the branches were nearly dragging on the ground (I have pictures). This year? We didn’t even get any strawberries because the winter and spring were so cold and long and I didn’t see any cherries at all on my neighbor’s tree.
            The weather changes every year. That is what weather is all about and what makes it such a popular subject of polite conversation!

          • T J Gann

            LMAOffffff! !! You have the gall to call someone else an idiot…. Haa haaa haaaa haaa haaa.

          • Gallilao

            Now, now, don’t cry. I wasn’t impugning your reputation. You’re still the bigger idiot!

          • Robert Mantel

            From the alarmist playbook:

            When you sense that your argument is losing strength, fling mud to create a diversion and appeal to authority.

      • Apple hater

        You realize that the Greenland ice sheet is growing right?

        https://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet

        • T J Gann

          No; the Greenland ice is in a state of rapid melt… Some areas on the island have been getting higher than average winter snowfall due to more moisture in the air due to warming ocean water and there it appears the glacier is growing… Overall, Greenland is losing ice at a rapid pace.

          https://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-cooling-gaining-ice.htm

          • CB

            “the Greenland ice is in a state of rapid melt…”

            True! The reference Apple provided said “page not found”, but it might as well have called him a liar:

            “Satellite observations over the last decade show that the ice sheet is not in balance. The calving loss is greater than the gain from surface mass balance, and Greenland is losing mass at about 200 Gt/yr.”

            http://www.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

          • conscious1

            Your link shows the mass balance increased by a huge amount 2016-17.

          • CB

            “mass balance increased by a huge amount 2016-17”

            …and why is that tiny section of the record so much more important to you than the rest of it?

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/38f2f1f3a29defc5efb8cfa91e582ba816d8b7b85c16b9f77351530fbd239166.png

          • conscious1

            It refutes the assertions that Greenland is in a state of rapid melt. If your graph extended to current conditions it would show a reversal of the recent trend.

          • Robert Mantel

            The graph shows the grey bar as the mean, calculated since 1981, which goes back farther than your graph above. And clearly the 2016-2017 period far exceeds that mean in terms of net surface mass ice budget.

          • conscious1

            Greenland mass balance has increased rapidly this year. Please look at the graphs from official sources not propaganda sites like SKS.

            http://beta.dmi.dk/en/groenland/maalinger/greenland-ice-sheet-surface-mass-budget/

          • T J Gann

            Well the scientists at NASA, NOAA and NSIDC has much better information about the ice melting off on Greenland so I go with what those scientists say about it.

          • conscious1

            You are in denial of empirical data. This is current information. The reduction in previous years has reversed.

          • T J Gann

            On the contrary Mr. Obtuse AGW denier… I am going by what NASA, NOAA and CDIAC scientists say annually right up to today.

            The summer melt of Greenland ice has been slower than the past few years but it’s melting at a fast rate.

          • conscious1

            Empirical data proves Greenland has rapidly increased it’s mass balance. You are the denier.

            Where have I said AGW doesn’t exist? CO2’s impact on climate change has been overstated but that doesn’t mean our emissions have no effect.

          • T J Gann

            When you say the CO2 impact on climate change has been overstated, you are denying the unsavory ramifications of AGW. It actually has been understated by many.

          • conscious1

            I doubt empirical CERES data from NASA can cure your delusion but here is an example of climate model error that overstates warming.

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00274.1

            “casting doubt on the ability to model and predict both regional and global climate. … OAFlux allows for more ocean warming than is observed, an error that implies the CMIP5 model net flux biases are even larger, by at least 10 W m−2 … Mean CMIP5 net CRE biases are very large, up to 40 W m−2, relative to CERES values. …”

          • T J Gann

            “The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 118 gigatonnes of ice per year since 2002, while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 281 gigatonnes per year.”

            http://arctic-news.blogspot.ca/2017/01/2016-well-above-1.5c.html

            http://lifeonthelastfrontier.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html

            http://www.livescience.com/3741-runaway-glacier-portend-rising-seas.html

          • Robert Mantel

            Great citations, all well recognized purveyors of scientific truth. Nothing from the National Equirer or the Guardian?

      • Greg Iverson

        Fabulous response

  • http://donsurber.blogspot.com/?m=1 libby

    Mann is still hiding his raw data from his fake hockey stick graph.
    What is he afraid of showing his data?
    We know he made it up and he knows he made it up so just show us how fake it is and we can move on.

    • Tom Yulsman

      In fact, since Mann’s original paper, many scientists have done independent reconstructions of past temperatures, and the results can be summarized this way: it’s hockey sticks galore. Not that you show any sign of being interested in anything but your own politically-influenced preconceived notions, but in case I am wrong, you could consider this: https://strangeweather.wordpress.com/2017/07/11/the-hockey-stick-is-alive-long-live-the-hockey-stick/

      • Apple hater

        NOAA continually manipulates all those lovely, over-red maps shown above. The BOM and DWM have been caught leaving out or deleting completely record low temperatures. Wildfires in the northwest, record cold summer in the rest of the continent. But of course it’s only the unusual warming that is considered legitimate and not just local anomalies right?

      • Gallilao

        Who cares? It’s just weather!

        • OWilson

          “Just weather” to you and I, but to the true believers it is a sign that the gods/mother nature are angry with the sinners.

          Always was.

          That’s why folks who claim they can make it go away for a few chickens or few pieces of silver, like shamans, medicine men, soothsayers, seers, oracles, rain dancers, snake oil salesmen, and Al Gore can always make a comfortable living from the sheep! :)

          YOUR End is Nigh!, is actually the second oldest profession! :)

          • Gallilao

            You can say that again!

          • T J Gann

            Yeah, I’m sure he can… He’s not very bright.

          • Gallilao

            Unlike you, a brilliant beacon of knowledge! {;o)

          • T J Gann

            You wrote, > (“Just weather” to you and I, but to the true believers it is a sign that the gods/mother nature are angry with the sinners.”).

            Says the make believe sage with ignorant childish blather.

          • Gallilao

            Have you known our friend here long?

          • OWilson

            Any questioning of Al Gore’s Received Devine Wisdom, brings ’em out in droves.

            True believers who reject NOAA’s modern satellite temperature record, in favor of ancient tidal gauges, ancient ice cores, ancient tree rings, and ancient steamship intake valve, records going back to 1850..

            To give Al Gore a Nobel Peace Prize they rejected another nominee, A Polish social worker who, according to The Guardian, “saved 2,500 Jewish babies and children from the Nazi death camps.

            “Irena Sendlerowa, 97, changed the identity of the children she rescued from the Warsaw ghetto in 1942 and 1943 and placed them with Polish families.

            “As a member of Zegota, a secret organisation set up by the Polish government in exile in London in the second world war to rescue Polish Jews, she organised a small group of social workers to smuggle the children to safety. She worked in the Warsaw health department and had permission to enter the ghetto, which had been set up in November 1940 to segregate the city’s 380,000 Jews.

            “She and her team smuggled the children out by variously hiding them in ambulances, taking them through the sewer pipes or other underground passageways, wheeling them out on a trolley in suitcases or boxes or taking them out through the old courtyard which led to the non-Jewish areas.

            “She noted the names of the children on cigarette papers, twice for security, and sealed them in two glass bottles, which she buried in a colleague’s garden.

            “After the war the bottles were dug up and the lists handed to Jewish representatives. Attempts were made to reunite the children with their families but most of them had perished in concentration camps.

            “She was arrested in October 1943 and taken to Gestapo headquarters where she was beaten. Her legs and feet were broken and she was then driven away to be executed. But a rucksack of dollars paid by Zegota secured her release. She was knocked unconscious and left by the roadside. She still has to use crutches today as a result of her injuries.

            Al Gore just grins.

            These are the kinds of people they are!

          • Gallilao

            Human nature never changes. The unwashed masses are just as gullible and easily lead as ever and money rules.

          • OWilson

            The sheep are still high fiving each other as their fascist leaders are happily killing 60,000,000 babies in the womb, since Roe vs Wade.

            Another 250,000,000 worldwide since 1977, because they don’t like DDT.

            Hitler, Stalin and Mao are pikers by comparison

            These are the folks we are talking about!

            They always know best! :)

            We who question their divine wisdom must be eradicated! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Wow, didn’t take long to slam into Godwin’s law like a brick wall. Now if only folks like you could muster the same outrage over actual Nazis killing peaceful protesters maybe we’d be less inclined to doubt your sincerity. Or you could surprise us and try arguing on topic, using facts, logic, and reason. But that’s not really your strong point, is it?

          • OWilson

            Why, it’s “me too Mikey” with nothing on topic complaining about nothing on topic!

            What took YOU so long? :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Why it’s hypocritical Ol’ Wilson, ranting and raving about all kinds of things off topic, but occasionally promoting incorrect data as the gospel, because it came from satellites! But that’s alright, I see you brought some of your anti-science friends yourself. But as with everything else, why hold yourself to the same standards you apply to everyone else? 😉

          • OWilson

            I’m still the only person with half a brain who will give you and your silly and snotty posts the time of day!

            You should be grateful! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Well, I am inclined to agree with your observation that you are “the only person with half a brain” here. The average person is typically born with a whole brain, believe it or not. It is rather impressive that you can arrange words on a screen that almost make sense, in light of such a severe cerebral mass deficit. But lobotomized or not, you really aren’t doing me any favors with your responses, and you’re certainly not doing yourself any favors either. Most folks aren’t that eager to display their ignorance, but you always rise to the occasion. 😉

          • OWilson

            Thank you!

            Coming from you that’s a compliment! :)

          • Gallilao

            Our kind of filth just doesn’t deserve to survive! }:o)

  • OWilson

    Those temperature “records” are being set just by “HUNDRETHS of a degree” in a post glacial world!

    Less than any scientific statistical margin of error!

    And, according to Scientific American, Nature, NASA and other reputable journals, Co2 is actually greening the deserts and the Earth itself.

    All to be expected as the Polar Ice retreats between natural Ice Ages.

    A more important RECORD, depending on your personal worldview, of course, is the World Record Agricultural Production Records we are setting year after year to feed a hungry world!

    Oh, and if anyone has valid science to support the notion that, “Long-term, human-caused climate change (along with El Niño) led to both extreme flooding and drought during the year” that really would be interesting!

    As it is, we are still waiting for the first hurricane, in NOAA’S predicted “More Active Than Normal Hurricane Season” :)

    Maybe if we all prayed a little harder?

    Keep the faith!

    • T J Gann

      If the planet’s temperature hasn’t risen the Arctic’s perennial ice would still be there… The mountain glaciers all around the globe would not be disappearing…The tropical reefs would not all be bleaching out to the point where they are all dying.
      Those are all obvious events that are happening and cannot be logically or sensibly denied and they are happening due to global warming which this time in Earth’s history is due to human activity of burning fossil fuels, primarily from burning coal.

      • OWilson

        Put down your luddite torch and pitchfork for a moment, and read the first sentence of the post you are responding to.:)

        Now take a deep, deep breathe!

        Now exhale slowly! :)

        Calling childish names, setting up strawmen, and burning them down might make you feel good, but it is why we laugh at Al Gore, and his true believers, like you! :)

        • T J Gann

          First of all, I insulted no one.. You can be ignorant about the subject of AGW which is no insult for me to say so, nor is it an insult to say a person is a hired shill for the fossil fuel industry if they are…. I did not say you or any others here were either.
          However; your reply to me is full of abusive insults, so don’t give me lectures on insulting others.
          I read your first sentence without having to hold my breath, etc as you suggest I should do…. My comments were there has to be warming for the few things I mentioned to be happening… What else would cause it?
          Why for just one example has the Arctic Ocean’s old and thick perennial ice almost all melted away since 1985? And that is continuing.
          The once several feet thick old perennial ice at the North Pole is gone and in summer months the North Pole is a large lake now.
          But it is not caused by warming according to your comments… I disagree as it is clearly obvious that you are mistaken.
          That is ignorance of the truth and the facts on your part… Or, you are one of the hired AGW denying liars. Which is it?

          • OWilson

            You must be responding to Al Gore’s voices in your head, because you are lying about what I posted!

            I did say temp records were being set and that Polar ice was retreating!

            But you’ve wasted enough of my time already! :)

      • Gallilao

        Climatology is not science! Never was! Never will be!

        • T J Gann

          A fool would say that.

          • Gallilao

            Did I say, “Climatology is not science! Never was! Never will be!”?

            Just making sure!

          • T J Gann

            You sure did and gave yourself away as being a fool.

          • Gallilao

            Just one more thing, “Climatology is not science! Never was! Never will be!”

          • T J Gann

            Who says so, besides yourself?

          • Gallilao

            Who cares?

          • T J Gann

            Actually I’m sure no one cares what you write.

          • Gallilao

            If it were only true…
            I had hoped there was going to be at least one less.

          • Gallilao

            You certainly are familiar with that science!

          • T J Gann

            Indeed, after about 14 years of reading comments like you post l am an expert at it.

        • OWilson

          Climatology is to physics, what Astrology is to Astronomy, what Chiropractic is to Medicine and what religion is to science.

          All require true believers!

          • Gallilao

            The unvarnished truth!

      • Robert Mantel

        “If the planet’s temperature hasn’t risen the Arctic’s perennial ice would still be there.”

        I have news for you, most of it is still all there.

        “The mountain glaciers all around the globe would not be disappearing.”

        They have been retreating since before the industrial revolution.

        “The tropical coral reefs would not all be bleaching out to the point where they are all dying.”

        No need to worry, it was probably el nino
        http://www.noaa.gov/media-release/global-coral-bleaching-event-likely-ending

        “Those are all obvious events that are some of the things that are happening because of AGW and cannot be logically or sensibly denied”

        Man contributes 4% of CO2 yet somehow we’re the only reason the earth is warming. Certainly that is irrefutable truth, especially if a guy in a fancy suit flying around the globe making propaganda movies to line his own pockets, tells you so.

        “And they are happening due to global warming which this time in Earth’s history is due to human activity of burning fossil fuels, primarily from burning coal… The now CO2 level near 410ppm is mostly due to burning coal.”

        Simple laws of thermodynamics can explain why a rising ocean temperature releases more CO2 into the air. You can’t ignore the single largest supplier of CO2 on the planet, even if Mr. Gore says you can.

        “Any who deny the science and facts of that are either ignorant of the truth and the science of climatology, or they are of the ones hired by the fossil fuel industry to write or preach misinformation about the science of climatology.”

        I love this statement, because for some reason only the denier/skeptic side of the argument is capable of corruption, yet there are literally hundreds of papers pumped out about the effects of climate change which are based on models which have yet to be proven to reflect reality. I have a B.Sc. in physics, but I bet you if I pitched a paper idea to study the effects of climate change on the price of tea in china I would get a grant. Or maybe the incidence of flatulence in sheep because they are too warm in their coats and the increased pressure inside their intestines causes a release of intestinal gases that exceed the mean flatulence level of a typical sheep by approx 3%. This is clearly linked to AGW.

        • T J Gann

          Well Mr. Mantel your first answer about the Arctic Ocean’s perennial ice,,, is a biggggg lie…. There was hardly any left as of September of 2014.

          Your second reply on the mountain glaciers melting way… Yes they were melting every summer and recovering every winter until about 1950… Now they are disappearing all around the globe except for one small area in the Himalayas.

          On the dying coral reefs since 2014 due to warming ocean waters’, three years running, you say it is probably El Nino.

          How stupid you are added to your lying about such very important issues…. It is clearly obvious with that childish crack that you don’t know what causes an El Nino.

          El Nino is caused by warming Pacific Ocean water… It is also the primary reason the tropical coral reefs are now dying.

          You say you have a BSs in physics…. What you have is a BS I agree….. Since the vast majority of scientists disagree with your BS having YOUR BS peer reviewed and published and get your Nobel Prize in Physics.

          Since you started off with the biggg lie, I shouldn’t even bother replying to your BS but I did in case someone who may be reading the comments here may believe your BS and can read the opposite side of it.

          And it is YOU ace who is denying the science.

          • Apple hater

            Interesting how hysterical alarmists when confronted by information that doesn’t support there agenda start to sling insults rather than provide citations that support their argument. Looks to me like the sea ice in the Arctic was at an all time low in 2012:

            https://neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov/csb/

            As for the coral reef comment you should get mad at the coral because they are recovering (I provided a citation) which again doesn’t support your hysterical agenda

          • T J Gann

            Yeah Apple hater, interesting how a person can flat out lie and have their lies proven and someone else shows up and makes a dam fool of themselves by writing something stupid in defense of the liar.

          • Robert Mantel

            Are you talking about you and Al Gore? Sounds about right.

        • T J Gann

          You are a liar Mr. Mantel…. Not a very good one however.

          Here is a NASA video of the Arctic Ocean’s Perennial ice disappearing since 1994 thru 2016… The perennial ice is the bright white ice in the video… As of now there is hardly any left.

          https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=2016+video+of%ee%80%81+arctic+perennial+ice+%ee%80%80disappearing&qpvt=2016+video+of%ee%80%81+arctic+perennial+ice+%ee%80%80disappearing&view=detail&mid=189C8DD930A277473826189C8DD930A277473826&FORM=VRDGAR

        • T J Gann

          You are a liar Mr. Mantel…

          I really should chill out and let people be as stupid as they want, I just can’t, because stupidity is contagious, and there’s always a chance that someone who doesn’t know any better will catch a lethal dose of it from some fool like you..

          From the article, > (“The Mountains of the Moon are melting.
          The iconic glaciers of the Ruwenzori Mountains, which cast a thick and icy mist more than 16,000 feet (4,900 meters) above the Equator in central Africa, have shrunk by 50 percent over the past 50 years, says the conservation group WWF. “).

          That was 8 years ago and now the atmospheric CO2 level and temperature has increased a great deal.

          http://scienceline.org/2008/12/ask-konkel-tropical-glaciers-melting-andes-mountains-runoff-groundwater/

          http://www.thewe.cc/weplanet/news/glaciers_melting.htm#this_is_real

          A quote from the article > (“Latest figures show the world’s glaciers are continuing to melt so fast that many will disappear by the middle of this century. “)…. Here are two more Mr. Mantel.

          http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/found-lakes-that-used-to-be-mount-everest-glaciers?

          utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_792447

        • T J Gann

          You lie Mr. Mantel.

          You say the refs are dying from El Nino… Well, El Nino is from warmng ocean water in the Pacific Ocean and the tropical coral reefs are dying in the Pacific, Atlantic and the Indian Ocean and many gulfs, bays, and seas.

          http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/scientists-record-biggest-ever-coral-die-off-on-australias-great-barrier-reef/ar-AAkSwe7?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=spartandhp

          https://www.forbes.com/sites/denizcam/2017/08/12/mike-bloombergs-new-frontier-for-fighting-climate-change-coral-reefs/#2353b6745f70

          A quote from the article, > (“Climate change hits the oceans harder than anywhere else and coral reefs are the “frontline of climate change,”).

  • diavi

    Keep in mind that any “solution” needs to address the 3 billion humans that rely on cheap energy because they are struggling to live on less than $3 a day. Most Americans spend more than this on their cable service.

    We are so damn pompous when it comes to “saving the planet” that we forget that half of the people living on it will suffer or die if we pull the energy rug out from under them.

  • conscious1

    Why did my previous comment not clear moderation? I violated no terms of use. Censorship??

    • jonathanpulliam

      They routinely delete sound, serious comments. You have to carry water for them or they delete your comment.

      • Tom Yulsman

        If you read anything here you surely can see that I do not even delete idiotic comments.

        • T J Gann

          I just posted a comment which has been blocked as (DETECTED AS SPAM)… It is not SPAM,, it does not violate the comment policy.

          It was not a reply to anyone else, it has no links and is on topic, and has not been posted previously and stayed on a thread.

          Can you get it corrected? I am on your side of the discussion here.

          • Tom Yulsman

            I spend maybe three hours a week moderating here, because otherwise I’d wind up in the hospital with heart palpitations… Seriously, I do not determine what the Disqus algorithm flags as spam. Discover set all of that up. So why your comment got flagged, I have no idea. I will get it out of limbo shortly.

          • T J Gann

            You fixed it… Thank you.

          • Tom Yulsman

            See my first response below. Since then I’ve un-flagged your comment (which the algorithm flagged originally, and I have no idea why). And I tried to get it posted. But I still do not see it here. So I will get in touch with my editor at Discover and ask him to trouble shoot what’s going on. Some very weird things are happening, in fact.

          • T J Gann

            Thank you..On my comment history it still says detected as spam.

      • T J Gann

        You’re still here.

    • Tom Yulsman

      I deleted nothing. The system Discover uses probably put it aside for moderation. I will check.

      • Gallilao

        I have to say that I am impressed with your maturity! In spite of the scathing attitude and tone of my comments, you have not censored me. Apparently you are man enough to accept constructive criticism, which is a rare trait today.
        Maybe you have an open mind and are still willing to learn something.
        Bravo!

      • T J Gann

        Why do you ignore me?

      • conscious1

        Thanks for finding and restoring my comment! I have experienced a lot of censorship over the years for simply posting scientific facts that counter the dangerous warming meme. I’m glad this outlet is not one of those!

  • jonathanpulliam

    This article is not a very convincing example of climate alarmist clap-trap.

    Earth’s polar regions have variously been denuded of ice altogether, and so thick with the stuff that it was a mile and a half thick over what is today Manhattan Island, and this has occurred 17 times during the course of the past 2.5 billion years.

    Obviously, these cycles pre-date humankind’s burning of fossil fuels.

    • Tom Yulsman

      Oh yes, I get it now. Climate changed naturally in the past, so that means it is impossible for it to change as the result of human influence. Why didn’t I think of that? Come to think of it, now I realize how misguided I was in thinking that about other issues as well. Wildfires, for example. How could I have ever believed that they could be caused by humans? Before we were around, wildfires were never caused by humans – they just had natural causes, like lightning. So that clearly means that humans never start wildfires. Because wildfires of the past were natural, all wildfires now and until time immemorial must be natural as well. Thank you for enlightening me Mr. Pulliam!

      • Gallilao

        I always thought comparing apples and oranges was considered idiotic in most cultures. Were are you from?

  • jonathanpulliam

    The climate is getting better.

    • T J Gann

      It is? Is that why all of the ocean’s tropical coral reefs are dying?

      • Gallilao

        No, that’s why all the wine vineyards are flourishing and global agriculture is blooming and booming.

        • T J Gann

          You are so horribly messed up child… We are discussing global climate.

          https://www.livescience.com/53400-crop-failure-draining-food-supplies-as-planet-warms.html

          • Gallilao

            You are so lame!

          • T J Gann

            Yes, of course I am and those two current articles about agriculture I linked are invalid.
            The links you posted to backup the idiocy you wrote are,,, are,,,, wait… You didn’t post any… Has haaa haaaa…Go to bed child.

          • Gallilao

            Why would I bother with your links?

    • Gallilao

      You know, last year was really nice! Hadn’t seen a summer like that in 40 years. I was hoping for an encore but it didn’t happen. But who knows, it could bump up again. It’s the weather. It changes!
      That’s what weather does!

  • jonathanpulliam

    Terrestrial sea levels are estimated to have risen a mere 1/3 of an inch over the past quarter century.

    Yawn.

    • T J Gann

      When the Arctic’s permafrost has mostly all melted and a few trillion tons of methane gas, CH4, enters our atmosphere we will see sea levels rise rapidly to at least 20 feet.

      When will that happen? At the current rate of permafrost melting, not very long from now… We’ll see… If nothing is done to greatly reduce our CO2 emissions it will happen.

      • Gallilao

        Pure nonsense!

        • T J Gann

          It is? Tell me, when something is trapped in frozen ice and the ice melts, what happens to the item trapped in the ice?

          • Gallilao

            The only thing that’s going to melt is the ice cream you use for brains!

          • T J Gann

            Return when you have reached the age of 9.

          • Gallilao

            Tell you what, you come back when you have something to contribute!

  • CB

    Well! We have quite a collection of Climate Deniers in the comments! Let’s fix that by downvoting garbage comments, shall we?

    climate.nasa.gov/system/internal_resources/details/original/87_Q10-temp-anomaly-740px.jpg

    • OWilson

      You show the temperature anomaly for every year since 1880 quite clearly.

      2012 to 2017 not at all!

      Why is that?

      Could it be……?

      Lol!

      • T J Gann

        From 2012 to 2017 almost every year was a record setting warmer year.

        • Gallilao

          And thank God for that!
          If GW doesn’t hurry up, I’m gonna freeze to death.
          We had such lovely, long, warm summers when I was kid…

          • T J Gann

            Well I see now.. I am wasting my good time replying to an idiot.

          • Gallilao

            Absolutely!
            Please, feel free to totally ignore all of my posts!

        • OWilson

          That’s not a logical answer!

          But exactly what we expect from true believers! :)

          • T J Gann

            LOL… You don’t know what the word logical means.

    • Not_that_anyone_cares, but…

      How, pray tell, does one downvote a comment?

      • CB

        “How, pray tell, does one downvote a comment?”

        Just click the down arrow to the right of the up arrow. It lowers the status of the posters regurgitating fossil fuel industry misinformation.

        “Internal fossil fuel industry memos reveal decades of disinformation—a deliberate campaign to deceive the public that continues even today.”

        http://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/fight-misinformation/climate-deception-dossiers-fossil-fuel-industry-memos

        • Not_that_anyone_cares, but…

          You are sure about that? I thought the down arrow was a placebo button.

          • CB

            “You are sure about that? I thought the down arrow was a placebo button.”

            Yup. It works. A lot of people think it’s a placebo, but it’s not.

            For the professional propagandists who use a vote-bot, it’s better to flag them as spam. The Climate Deniers on this thread are volunteer liars.

          • Not_that_anyone_cares, but…

            `Well, I must go back and downvote about 1996 of the last 2000 comments I read. Many of them being mine.

    • Robert Mantel

      Do you know what a sinwave is? It’s a cyclical function. Sometimes the slope of the curve is up, sometimes flat, sometimes it points down. Record cold temps for summer in Denmark, Australia, North America especially central and eastern parts of the continent. If you want to take a tiny part of the many interwoven cycles that account for the natural variability in our climate and then say the peak to peak section of the sinewave is cause for alarm, you’re not seeing the big picture. The sun is heading to grand solar minimum which is estimated to be in 2030. It’s going to get colder.

  • T J Gann

    An El Nino year is natural for one reason only, rising planet surface temperature.
    An El Nino is the result of a warming of the surface temperature of the planet, which includes the 70% of ocean waters’…. El Nino is NOT a source of heat, it is the result of heat and that is a result of the rising CO2 level.

    • conscious1

      EL Nino’s are a natural oscillation that release stored solar energy. It has almost nothing to do with CO2. The Troposphere where CO2’s signal should be most clearly seen showed almost no warming prior to the 2015-16 Super El Nino. The heat couldn’t have come from our emissions as a result.

      • T J Gann

        Write your version of the science up, have it peer reviewed and published in a science journal and get your Nobel Prizes for science and physics.

        • conscious1

          I don’t need to publish, Scientists have already done that. I’m just reporting what they have found in the peer reviewed literature.

          • T J Gann

            Please do reference it and also show that the ocean’s around the globe haven’t warmed several degrees so that all of the tropical coral reefs are now dying.

            It used to be that and El Nino year occurred about every 6 to 8 years… Now they are occurring near every year because of global warming caused by a vey high level of atmospheric CO2 which is now rising at near 3ppm a year… Do you understand that?

          • conscious1

            The oceans have not warmed several degrees. The most recent decade shows no significant warming.

            http://www-argo.ucsd.edu/rey_line_atlas.jpg

          • T J Gann
          • conscious1

            Once again I give you hard empirical data that refutes your point and you respond with an alarmist rag. Will you admit that the Oceans haven’t warmed “several degrees”?

            The GBR bleaching was mostly a result of low tides that exposed reefs to high temperatures.

          • T J Gann

            You wrote, > (“The GBR bleaching was mostly a result of low tides that exposed reefs to high temperatures.”).

            There are several articles in that kink where scientists show you are a liar.

          • conscious1

            Why did those “scientists” ignore the low tides that contributed to the GBR bleaching and only focus on global warming?

          • T J Gann

            Who said they ignored anything? You? … They said the PRIMARY cause of the dying coral reefs is the warming ocean waters.

            The paper you linked discussed that lower water event happening on some coral reefs in Indonesia.

          • T J Gann

            You are lying.

            http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/06/23/bleached-great-barrier-reef-corals-sickest-ever-warn-scientists/

            Quote from the article, > (“Corals are dying rapidly and sustained high sea temperatures will make it harder than ever to recover, say researchers”).

          • conscious1

            Please explain how corals survived much higher temperatures and CO2 levels in the geologic past.

          • T J Gann

            They didn’t… They died as they are dying now. Read the science papers of Dr. Michael J. Benton.

          • conscious1

            If they died why are they found world wide?

          • T J Gann

            http://globalreefproject.com/coral-reef-history.php

            A quote from the article> (“It is also known that over the 500 million years, during which corals are known to have existed, they have experienced a number of extinction events. These extinction events were largely the result of dramatic changes in their environment, such as we are seeing today.

            This period in Earth’s history has been termed OrdovicianSilurian Extinction which resulted in the disappearance of corals and as much as 60% of all marine life”).

            250 million years ago it was 10 million years before basic coral reefs began to once again appear.

          • conscious1

            The OrdovicianSilurian Extinction was a result of an ice age that exposed corals when the sea level dropped. We are not experiencing anything like the major extinction events. Comparing those with conditions today is just plain dishonest.

          • T J Gann

            The article covers several mass extinctions , not just that one.

            You didn’t read the article… Corals will die from temperature changes both up and down or major changes over time.

            The point is Mr. Obtuse, sometimes sudden temperature changes kill the corals as do long term major temperature changes as the article states.

            The reason the corals died 250 million and 55 million years ago for example was because of warming ocean water, the same as is happening today.

            Don’t be jerky and argue what an article says when you haven’t read the article..

          • conscious1

            I read the article. It doesn’t say what you think it does until the Modern Day section at the end. Please look at the NOAA graph and tell me we are comparable to the PETM. No objective scientist would make such an outrageous claim.

          • T J Gann

            I have never said we are in the midst of a mass extinction… I say we are near that happening and it will happen if we allow it.

          • conscious1

            The Great Barrier Reef is 20 million years old. It formed when temperatures were much warmer than they are now and far warmer than what is expected from our emissions. The geologic record does not support your conjecture.

            Please scroll down to the temperature chart for the last 65 million years supplied by NOAA.

            https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been

          • T J Gann

            If a coral reef forms in warmer waters and that is what they are used to they will live well in warmer waters…. If the waters cool slowly or warm more very slowly over time that does not bother most life and the corals would likely adapt to long time changes.

            Now tell me where you learned the ocean waters were much warmer 20 million years ago?

          • conscious1

            “Now tell me where you learned the ocean waters were much warmer 20 million years ago?”

            NOAA, look at the link I provided.

          • T J Gann

            The planet was cooling 20 million years ago and the CO2 level was below 300ppm.

          • conscious1

            No it wasn’t below 300ppm. https://skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=77

          • T J Gann

            I didn’t find a word in that article you linked that mentioned 20 million years ago… It wasn’t peer reviewed either… You say we should always use peer reviewed citations.

          • conscious1

            Look at the graph. CO2 levels were above 300ppm 20 million years ago. I assumed you would trust SKS.

          • T J Gann

            The graph doesn’t show that. You make things up.

          • conscious1

            You can’t read a graph or accept any empirical data that contradicts your delusions.

          • T J Gann

            You are crazy.

          • T J Gann

            You said the Great Barrier Reef developed when temperatures were much higher than today… How much higher? ___ Here is an article that states a major cooling of Earth happened 20 million years ago.

            http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/cause-ice-age.html

            A quote from the article, > (“Between 36 and 20 million years ago the Earth experienced the first of three major cooling steps.).”). < End quote

            You really should stop… You are making a big fool of yourself.. Every argument you raised I replied to and shot your arguments down in flames and then you go on to another and start it all over again.

            You are not going to win any argument with me on the AGW issue… You clearly do not have a clue of what you are talking about and you laughingly post links for articles that refute what you argue… You are a mess.

          • conscious1

            You didn’t bother to check the NOAA link. It clearly shows temperatures were much higher than now 20 million years ago. The fact that it cooled from the PETM doesn’t mean it was cool compared to today. Your inability to reason or admit your mistakes is the cause of your delusion.

            The article shows that we are still in an ice age with successive cooling steps down. Current temperatures are in the low end of the geologic record.

          • T J Gann

            You wrote, > (“You didn’t bother to check the NOAA link. It clearly shows temperatures were much higher than now 20 million years ago”).

            No it doesn’t…..

          • conscious1

            I guess you don’t know how to read a chart then. It was far warmer than now and then increased. The GBR handled those much warmer temperatures. The far right are current temps. The drop from PETM was dramatic but still above current temps 20 million years ago.

          • T J Gann

            The GB Ref isn’t doing well now with the rise of water temperatures.

            Btw… I believe it is you who cant read the graph properly.

          • S Graves

            No Stoner. This is what happened.

            A warm period, called the Eocene, was followed by a long cooling trend. Between 52 and 36 million years ago, ice caps developed in East Antarctica, reaching down to sea level in some places. Close to Antarctica, the temperature of the water near the surface dropped to between 5 and 8 degrees Celsius. Between 36 and 20 million years ago the Earth experienced the first of three major cooling steps. At this time a continental-scale temperate ice sheet emerged in East Antarctica.

            CO2 didn’t reach current levels until 26 mmy. Got it?

          • T J Gann

            You are stupid Graves… I replied to another fool who said the Great Barrier Reefs developed 20 million years ago when the temperatures were much higher than they are today.

            No they weren’t. And the CO2 levels were lower than today 20 million years ago which began dropping 26 million years ago.

            Oh yeah; and when the ice sheets formed 34 million years ago on Antarctica the first humans on Earth built a resort there. There is no evidence of that but neither is there any evidence any ice sheets formed there at that time.

          • S Graves

            Yeah but I’m replying to something you said on the other board. That board is now closed. Here’s what you said;

            T J Gann S Graves • 20 hours ago
            Pay attention Mr. Graves…. CB says, to paraphrase, > (When in Earth’s history have polar ice caps formed with a CO2 level as high or higher than it is today?).

            My answer is above. You can run for it if you want to, however.

          • T J Gann

            LOL You are lying.. You repied to the comment on the GBR formed 20 million years ago.

          • S Graves

            Why did you disappear that post 2 below here, Stoner. Fortunately I captured it.


            T J Gann

            LOL You are lying.. You repied to the comment on the GBR formed 20 million years ago.—

            What am I lying about? I moved our discussion over here because the other board is closed.

            Now, are you going to deny my comment just below or am I correct?

          • T J Gann

            I’m right here Digger…. Spent a couple of days visiting friends.

          • S Graves

            I wasn’t worried, Stoner. Just hoping.

          • conscious1

            Peer reviewed science in response to your alarmist blog.

            https://www.biogeosciences.net/14/817/2017/

            “The clear link between mortality and sea level
            fall also calls for a refinement of the hierarchy of El Niño impacts
            and their consequences on coral reefs.”

          • T J Gann

            The “peer reviewed” paper you cite discusses (*Indonesian reef flat communities*) and it SUGGESTS lower ocean water levels COULD be a couse of coral bleaching.

            The tropical coral reefs are dying ALL AROUND the world including the Indian Ocean where the sea levels had not dropped and in the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans and seas and gulfs around the globe where sea level dropping were not noted.

            The “peer reviewed” paper also says, > quote, > (“The 2015–2016 El-Niño and related ocean warming has generated significant coral bleaching and mortality worldwide.”)… Unquote… Note all it says,

            An excellent article and I agree with it…. I also agree with the many Oceanic bio-chemists and oceanographers who spend thier adult lives studying coral reefss who say the warming ocean waters are the PRIMARY cause of dyying coral reefs three years running sicne 2014.

      • T J Gann

        You wrote, > (“EL Nino’s are a natural oscillation that release stored solar energy.”).

        That stored energy is heat…. Tell me why the ocean waters’ warmed up.

        • conscious1

          The 60 year grand solar maximum from 1945-2005 was accompanied by fewer clouds in the tropics during the rapid warming at the end of the century. This is why the oceans heated up.

          You are ignoring the fact that CO2 couldn’t be the cause of the extra heat. It would have to show up at its source before it could be transferred to the oceans. DWIR can’t penetrate more than a few microns into the ocean surface. It contributes more to evaporation than ocean heat content.

          • T J Gann

            The solar mazimum has nothing to do with atmospheric gases and the current global warmin gwe are now experiencing.

            260 and 55 million years ago like global warming situations occurred and it ended with mass extinctions of life, because the CO2 level kept rising until the polar ice caps melted and vast amounts of CH4 released from thawed permafrost and the ensuing high planet surface temperatures caused the mass extinctions.

            The most dangerous issue then was the releasing methane gas, CH4, and the dying coral reefs and ocean life such as the green plant life phytoplankton which supplied most of the planet’s oxygen, as it does today… When that life died the oxygen level plummeted and life died.

            Why would you think that cannot happen the third time in Earth’s history? __ It is well on the way to happen again.

            http://www.resilience.org/stories/2004-12-15/methane-burps-ticking-time-bomb/

          • conscious1

            Mainstream science has studied the methane issue in depth and has rejected it as a problem. Even the IPCC said it was highly unlikely with high confidence.

          • T J Gann

            Really? The 400+ ISSS team’s scientists who conduct hands on, on site research in the Arctic say otherwise.

            I wonder why the CH4 level over the Arctic Region rose from 800ppm in 2012 to 2800ppm now?

            The article I linked which you obviously did not take the time to read also says otherwise and what that author and geologist wrote in 2004 and warmed would happen if no action was taken to prevent it is happening just as he warned would happen… So it is clearly obvious he was correct.

            You disagree with the science of climatology and disagree with what is clearly obviously happening so I will stop wasting my time arguing with a fool.

          • conscious1

            Your link is not a peer reviewed paper. It is an article written by a govt geologist. The mainstream consensus is that Methane isn’t a problem to worry about. I agree with the scientists. Only a minority are pushing this.

          • T J Gann

            Neither is this article we are commenting on a peer reviewed article. John Atcheson wrote that article in 2004 and what he predicted would happen is now happening…. He also quotes Dr. Michael J. Benton’ work….. So tell us what Atcheson wrote is incorrect.

            Not every science article we read or comment on is a peer reviewed article, but the science finding results of the ISSS teams’ research on Arctic methane was peer reviewed and published in Science Journal…

          • conscious1

            Why don’t you cite the peer reviewed research?

            I’ve been fact checking media articles on science for almost 50 years. They usually have it completely wrong.

            There is no way you can understand how badly the media has deluded you without studying the current peer reviewed research which uses empirical measurements to show what actually drives climate change. Natural variation dominates CO2 on all time scales.

          • T J Gann

            Why don’t you cite peer reviewed research for all of the misinformation you post?

            You say, > (“I’ve been fact checking media articles on science for almost 50 years. They usually have it completely wrong.”).

            Most of all you have written on this thread is wrong…. You have not shown a single thing I have posted that is incorrect or a single article I have linked that is incorrect.

          • conscious1

            I clearly showed you were wrong about the ocean warming several degrees and that Greenland is not rapidly losing ice. The peer reviewed papers I’ve cited support my statements. Your news articles don’t carry more weight than scientific papers and empirical measurements.

          • Coert Welman

            Since when have atmospheric methane levels climbed to more than 7 times that of CO2? Units are important Kem Patrick, sorry John Tin Dell, sorry TJ Gann.

  • Gallilao

    Well Tom, after reading some of your comments, I have to admit that I admire your ethic, so I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and offer some information you may be lacking. I expect you to do your own homework, after all, I wouldn’t want to be accused of cherry picking or biasing the facts.

    Unlikely as it may be, if you were a member of The North American Geothermal, Ground-coupled, Heat Pump Association, you would know that there is an underground thermal gradient, that smoothly increases in temperature the deeper you go. That thermal gradient however, fluctuates with the seasons, near the surface (in this neighborhood, above about 80 feet or about 25 meter), but below that equilibrium temperature gradient, the temperature never changes, day in day out, weak in weak out, month in month out, year in year out. The depth of this equilibrium gradient is of paramount importance in the design of vertical ground-loops for geothermal heating and cooling systems, because it determines the depth and amount of ground-loop required to produce a stable heat source, for the year round.

    Below the equilibrium gradient, all the heat and the temperature are derived from the internal heat of our planet. Above the equilibrium gradient, the temperature is influenced by the Sun and changes and follows the seasons and solar intensity.

    Climate is the background temperature of the interior of our planet and it is that climate that the Sun’s energy contributes to, to produce weather.

    In other words, the climate is governed by the planet, Sun gives us weather not climate, which is exactly what the GHG theory told us from the start, back in 1859.

  • William M Durham

    Your biggest problem is that you always qualify things with the magic words, El Nino, Without it where are you? Drop it totally out of the picture and where do you stand?

  • Dan Imler

    Too many trolls. Pseudo trolls.

    • T J Gann

      Stop trolling.

  • Coert Welman

    “With a full scale global war that could be accomplished in less then 4 years of time with every coal fired and nuclear power plant shut down and replaced with clean geo-thermal power with wind and solar backup and the hydro electric continuing to produce power.”

    And where exactly would the money for that infrastructure come from?

  • Radio Scout

    Geothermal is coming into its own.

    Thanks for the comment, TJ (WF). Great food for thought.

    • T J Gann

      Did you decide to give up posting comments?

    • Ned Christy

      Are you okay? (WF).

  • Gallilao

    The only war is in your tiny little noodle!

  • OWilson

    Warning!

    Snowflake luddite science deniers leave the room.

    Here’s what NOAA’s satellite record says:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2017_v6-550×317.jpg

    • Mike Richardson

      Are we still trying this? Have they corrected to account for this discrepancy in the satellite readings?

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/06/30/corrected -satellite-data-show-30-percent-increase-in-global-warming-matching-surface-data/?utm_term=.551d4fac0b9d

      So you’d do better to go by the surface readings, since after correcting for readings taken at different times of the day, they’re pretty close, and higher than you’ve asserted Regardless, even the graph you provided shows a clear warming trend, unless you see up as down–which is entirely possible.

      • OWilson

        STRAWMAN ALERT!

        There he goes again! :)

        I am “asserting” nothing.

        This is NOAA’s data record. Go take your complaints to NOAA!

        A quote from your article:

        “I’m glad we live in a world where Remote Sensing Systems exists. I would not want to live in a world where one group was entrusted to do this work.”. – Ben Santer

        He should know! :)

        So much for Settled Science!” :)

        • Mike Richardson

          They are adjusting the data because the readings were taken at different times of the day over the course of several years, due to drift in the satellites’ orbits. If the readings were not all taken at the same time each day, you’d expect differences in temperature between 3:00 pm and 6:00 pm. I’ve previously explained this to you, and yet you persist in faking ignorance to promote incorrect information, proving you have no interest in an honest debate with accurate data. As usual. :)

          • OWilson

            They are “adjusting” data all over the world, Mikey, as we speak, from land based measurements, proxies for the uncovered two thirds of the planet.

            Some in a very dubious fashion, that makes the news and requires multiple “peer” (read their fellow AGWers) Investigations, as we find out from time to time! Of course there never is any “evidence” as no “evidence” is left lying around, a la the Clintons. :)

            There’s another scandal going on in Australia right now!

            We don’t seem to have these “scandals” and multiple “Investigations” about “settled science” such as gravity, or motion. Settled science predicts with uncanny precision.

            But nobody ever quotes the U.N. IPCC 1990 FAR Report which they told us was the most Comprehensive Scientific Report in the History of Science, involving thousands of the world’s “BEST” scientists from 120 Countries.

            They were simply, WRONG!

            Likewise the attacking of satellite data is another lame luddite attempt to keep the Dark Science of AGW, in the dark ages, and Al Gore in business, but it won’t last, short of shooting them down :)

            I can guarantee that! :)

            Of course, your opinion may differ! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Yep, correcting for temperature readings taken at different times of the day is obviously a conspiracy. “Scandal! Al Gore! Robert Mugabe! Clinton!” Anything but admitting that measurements, whether taken by satellite or ground based instruments, should be taken at the same time of day to properly show any trend upwards or downwards. It’s a simple prospect, regardless of how you try to deflect with your tinfoil hat rants or ridiculous statements that anyone wanting more accurate data is a Luddite prejudiced against those poor, defenseless satellites. 😂

            But when you don’t have facts, I guess you’re reduced to hyperbolic political rhetoric. Even if you’re working with just half a brain, you should be able to do better than this. :)

          • OWilson

            I post NOAA satellite data.

            You post an article from the Washington Post Swamp?

            Lol!

          • Mike Richardson

            Which contains links to the journal article explaining why the NOAA data required correction. You really must be operating at half of normal cerebral capability if your critical thinking is that badly impaired. Sad!

          • OWilson

            All raw data requires “corrections”, Mikey, especially ancient steam ship intake valve records going back to 1880, ancient ice core samples, ancient tree ring proxies, ancient tidal gauges, and gasp! , balloons!

            Especially terrestrial land measurements, before a large part of the world had been explored, including the North and South Poles. :)

            Collecting, filling in and adjusting such indirect evidence is a major part of the Global Warming Industry, and their budgets.

            Satellite adjustments are easier, cheaper and over time, as thousands of multiple repeated transits cover every inch of the planet, and every time period. consistently over time. Apples to apples.

            1880 steamship intake valve records, and balloons,

            or

            Satellite data over 38 years.

            THAT’s why NOAA spends a fortune on weather satellites and publishes the statellite data!

            And, that’s why we laugh at you!

          • Mike Richardson

            You’ll probably laugh at this too, since it’s factual and not the rhetorical fetishism of technology you’ve apparently made no real effort to understand. Here’s the article from the Journal of Climate from the American Meteorological Society, researched and written by individuals much more familiar with how these satellites actually work:

            http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-16-0768.1

            Funny, but after removing the described discrepancies, you get data that is much closer to the ground based measurements — which NOAA has also vouched for, though you keep deliberately ignoring that part. Rather dishonest of you, but not surprising. Now by all means, please engage in some more hyperbolic rhetoric while ignoring the facts. :)

          • OWilson

            You accuse NOAA of publishing false data? :)

            Are they refusing to “remove” known “discrepancies”?

            Yet another government scandal? :)

          • Mike Richardson

            That’s about the kind of simplistic rhetorical response I expected. Par for the course, really. No, NOAA has published data derived from multiple sources, including satellite, land based, and oceanic sensors. The context of those methods, and their limitations, is important. That’s the point of the journal article I cited. As I’ve mentioned repeatedly, and as you’ve ignored repeatedly. But when your position is devoid of facts, resort to rhetoric, right? 😉

          • OWilson

            Bye, Mikey! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Your tacit admission of failure in the face of facts and concession to reality is duly noted, and accepted. I’d give you an award for participation, but I wouldn’t want to compromise your “principles.” Until later, goodbye. : )

          • OWilson

            Think of it as me moving away from the town drunk, after he has barfed all over my girlfriends new dress.

            We’ll let the customers decide who is the PITA. :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Bit of a failed analogy, since the one embarrassing himself and regurgitating useless verbiage here is actually you. No facts to dispute what I posted explaining why the satellite readings you hold so dear should be taken with a grain of salt — just more generalizations, conspiracy theories, and juvenile attempts at insults. Interesting that you described a girlfriend in your ironic metaphor, particularly since you’ve mentioned being married many times in the past. You wife would probably consider that interesting, too. 😉

          • OWilson

            You socialists have re-defined “marriage”, so you have no Idea of the difference between a “wife” and a “girlfriend”!

            Priceless! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            Your attempt to deflect while exposing your own bigotry is cute, but sorry, you did in fact mention being married many times in the recent past. Or did she get tired of you and change your marital status to her benefit? That would be priceless, indeed! 😁

          • OWilson

            I’ve been married many times in the recent past?

            A good example of how socialist Fake News gets spread! :)

          • Mike Richardson

            More deflection — I must have gotten pretty close with that deduction. Well, I did figure karma would eventually catch up with you. And of course, still no sensible rebuttal to my point regarding the satellite temperature readings. As I’ve pointed out before, your replies to me really haven’t been helping you much. But by all means, if you want to subject yourself to further humiliation, I see no reason to dissuade you. :)

          • OWilson

            OK, I give in! :)

  • RJ

    I read this piece with interest as I am what used to be referred to as a Skeptic but now appears to have been reframed as Denier?
    I would like to ask the author what his views are, as someone who holds a different opinion to my own, without the idea that I am attacking a belief system in any way.

    1. How has your belief in human caused climate change affected your actions (in terms of your consumption of environmental resources, not limited to carbon)?
    2. If what you are referring to is a scientific belief and not a moral one, should you not be encouraging people to investigate alternatives rather than presenting it as a conclusion?
    3. How many scientists would receive funding for investigations that disproved the belief you have described?
    4. NASA’s temperature data used to be measured from hemispheric points rather than global, why do you support a shift from regional climate modelling to global?
    5. If regional and/or global temperatures are increasing either by human or non human caused actions- is it not therefore time to stop presenting opinions and start focusing on solutions?
    6. Arguably, the countries who are the biggest consumers of carbon are the ones who are least responsive to international sanction (China, United States)- how you do propose to change carbon consuming behaviour at the individual level?
    7. Belief in climate change has been shown to have a moral licensing effect- is it not therefore more beneficial to judge people based on their behaviour towards the environment rather than what they believe in?

  • Robert Kolker

    All physical happenings are natural. The conform to the laws of physics.

  • Linda Pettit

    and what effect are the chemtrails that are they are spraying in the air have on the weather?????????anyone??????????

NEW ON DISCOVER
OPEN
CITIZEN SCIENCE
ADVERTISEMENT

ImaGeo

ImaGeo is a visual blog focusing on the intersection of imagery, imagination and Earth. It focuses on spectacular visuals related to the science of our planet, with an emphasis (although not an exclusive one) on the unfolding Anthropocene Epoch.

About Tom Yulsman

Tom Yulsman is Director of the Center for Environmental Journalism and a Professor of Journalism at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He also continues to work as a science and environmental journalist with more than 30 years of experience producing content for major publications. His work has appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Audubon, Climate Central, Columbia Journalism Review, Discover, Nieman Reports, and many other publications. He has held a variety of editorial positions over the years, including a stint as editor-in-chief of Earth magazine. Yulsman has written one book: Origins: the Quest for Our Cosmic Roots, published by the Institute of Physics in 2003.

ADVERTISEMENT

See More

ADVERTISEMENT

Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar
+