Research pair suggest global warming almost completely natural

[Binary_Bark]

Australian biologist and climate science denialist Jennifer Marohasy and computer scientist John Abbot have published a paper in the journal GeoResJ outlining their study of climate change using neural network technology—their results show that the climate changes the world is now experiencing are almost completely natural. Marohasy offers an additional explanation and outline of their work on her blog. Also, alt-right news site Breitbart offers a take on the work.
Most scientists around the world have reached a consensus on global warming—it is happening, and it is happening because humans have ejected so much CO2 into the atmosphere. But Marohasy and Abbot claim that this consensus is built on a faulty base, one decided upon almost a century ago, when work was done to learn about the heat absorption potential of carbon dioxide. They suggest further that so little work has been done since that time applying the principles globally that it is impossible to prove that carbon dioxide has the ability to impact world temperatures. For that reason, they began collecting data from prior studies that offered a means of temperature reading over the past 2000 years—tree rings, coral cores etc. They fed that data into a neural network that Abbot has been using to predict rainfall patterns in Australia for the past several years. The network functions by looking at patterns and learning about given situations—in this case, global temperature patterns over the course of 2000 years, and then offers predictions.
The researchers report that the computer predicted temperatures rising in roughly the same way as they have based on real-world measures—in the absence of added carbon dioxide—which suggests that carbon dioxide is not the cause. They also note that there was a time known as the Medieval Warm Period that ran from approximately 986 to 1234, when temperatures were roughly equal to those today. This, the two researchers suggest, offers evidence that the planet would have heated to the degree it has regardless of whether humans pumped carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for a hundred years or not. They note that their results also showed global temperature averages declining after 1980, which coincides with the slowdown noted by other mainstream scientists, but not fully explained. They suggest the warming we are now experiencing is mostly naturally occurring and that it will likely abate just as it has done in the past.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2017-08-pair-global-natural.html#jCp

 

[Jet-Fighter7700]

somebody trying to put al gore out of a job.......

could it be a conspiracy to raise taxes? maybe?
or it could be legit, but not very well understood yet.....

 

[pinball wizard]

Yeah, take that Alaska. Your permafrost is a lie.

 

[etienne_marais]

Yeah, take that Alaska. Your permafrost is a lie.

That makes no sense

 

[konfab]

Regardless of what the source of the heating or not is there are a couple of things that everyone should be able to agree on:
1) The fuels we are using right now are finite. If we don't find alternatives, our economies will collapse.
2) Regardless of what you think of CO2 and greenhouse gasses, there are very noticeable effects that are caused by pollution. So in the same way that most people will understand that dumping rubbish into a river is a bad thing, it shouldn't be that different to notice that dumping particulates and sulphides into the air might also be a bad thing. No-one wants to live in a polluted city or live next to a polluted river.
3) The fuels we use right now create large international dependencies that fuel political violence. Most of the alternative tech to oil allows for countries to be far more energy independent.

To me these are the logical avenues where you can push 99% of the stuff that gets pushed with global warming, without resorting to what I view as scaremongering. If they happen to do something for global warming should it exist, all the better.

 

[Raithlin]

Pollution and wasting natural resources are a totally separate issue. I agree on that. Also been saying for a long while that global warming is a political tool, not an actual concern ( as in we didn't create the problem and it's overrated )

 

[OrbitalDawn]

Regardless of what the source of the heating or not is there are a couple of things that everyone should be able to agree on:
1) The fuels we are using right now are finite. If we don't find alternatives, our economies will collapse.
2) Regardless of what you think of CO2 and greenhouse gasses, there are very noticeable effects that are caused by pollution. So in the same way that most people will understand that dumping rubbish into a river is a bad thing, it shouldn't be that different to notice that dumping particulates and sulphides into the air might also be a bad thing. No-one wants to live in a polluted city or live next to a polluted river.
3) The fuels we use right now create large international dependencies that fuel political violence. Most of the alternative tech to oil allows for countries to be far more energy independent.

To me these are the logical avenues where you can push 99% of the stuff that gets pushed with global warming, without resorting to what I view as scaremongering. If they happen to do something for global warming should it exist, all the better.

Agree with 1 and 3, but you're still wrong about 2. If you don't address humanity pumping out an excessive amount of greenhouse gases, the problem won't be solved. Pollution is bad enough on its own, obviously, but addressing that won't address the climate change problem.

 

[konfab]

Agree with 1 and 3, but you're still wrong about 2. If you don't address humanity pumping out an excessive amount of greenhouse gases, the problem won't be solved. Pollution is bad enough on its own, obviously, but addressing that won't address the climate change problem.

How many pollution cutting measures can you think of that don't reduce the amount of CO2 or are not covered by 1 or 3?

 

[grok]

Regardless of what the source of the heating or not is there are a couple of things that everyone should be able to agree on:
1) The fuels we are using right now are finite. If we don't find alternatives, our economies will collapse.
2) Regardless of what you think of CO2 and greenhouse gasses, there are very noticeable effects that are caused by pollution. So in the same way that most people will understand that dumping rubbish into a river is a bad thing, it shouldn't be that different to notice that dumping particulates and sulphides into the air might also be a bad thing. No-one wants to live in a polluted city or live next to a polluted river.
3) The fuels we use right now create large international dependencies that fuel political violence. Most of the alternative tech to oil allows for countries to be far more energy independent.

To me these are the logical avenues where you can push 99% of the stuff that gets pushed with global warming, without resorting to what I view as scaremongering. If they happen to do something for global warming should it exist, all the better.

Typical, your whole reason for protesting global warming has just been defeated but hey why waste a good protest prep let's just shift the goalposts ever so slightly and carry on, maybe if we lucky we might even be able to re-use the signs!

 

[konfab]

Typical, your whole reason for protesting global warming has just been defeated

My whole reason for protesting global warming will be defeated when politicians, activists and scientists actually act on their theories instead of just telling everyone else to do. I find it painfully hard to take the opinion of a scientist preaching about global warming, whist they simultaneously go on international conferences that cause the very thing they want to stop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Climate_Change_conference
It is held in a different location every year, thus fuelling hundreds, if not thousands of flights, all powered by fossil fuels.

If the people telling everyone else to cut down their emissions cannot hold their conference over the internet, and genuinely reduce their own emissions, then why should people anyone else have to listen to it and agree with it.


Also them being able to predict the temperature more than 2 weeks in advance would actually be really good evidence.

 

[OrbitalDawn]

How many pollution cutting measures can you think of that don't reduce the amount of CO2 or are not covered by 1 or 3?

What definition of pollution are you using?

Do you consider targeting greenhouse gas emissions from cars and industry to be 'pollution cutting measures'?

 

[Xarog]

Regardless of what the source of the heating or not is there are a couple of things that everyone should be able to agree on:
1) The fuels we are using right now are finite. If we don't find alternatives, our economies will collapse.
2) Regardless of what you think of CO2 and greenhouse gasses, there are very noticeable effects that are caused by pollution. So in the same way that most people will understand that dumping rubbish into a river is a bad thing, it shouldn't be that different to notice that dumping particulates and sulphides into the air might also be a bad thing. No-one wants to live in a polluted city or live next to a polluted river.
3) The fuels we use right now create large international dependencies that fuel political violence. Most of the alternative tech to oil allows for countries to be far more energy independent.

To me these are the logical avenues where you can push 99% of the stuff that gets pushed with global warming, without resorting to what I view as scaremongering. If they happen to do something for global warming should it exist, all the better.

You pretty much summed up my position to a T.

 

[Indigogirl]

No reputable climate change researchers have ignored or denied the natural cycles of warming or cooling. The anthropogenic acceleration of climate change - especially through emissions - is largely the concern.

The comments on this paper are - to my mind - more revealing than the findings of the paper in many ways.

One comment refers to a Tweet by Gavin Schmidt‏ @ClimateOfGavin: "There's more to it! Their time axis is off by ~35 years and magnitude is too large by ~10%. So their '20th C' is actually 1845-1965."


Hmmmm ...