Salinsky wrote: ZVUGKTUBM wrote:
What else might warrant a banning? Not standing with climate change believers perhaps?
Nah, I think boards was more concerned about the posting of lies with the potential to do real harm to other innocent people.
Denying climate change just makes you look stupid.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/24/top-scientists-insist-global-warming-really-did-slow-down-in-the-2000s/
You could be forgiven for not being able to keep up with whether scientists do, or don’t, think global warming “paused” during the early 2000s.
First, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told us, in a definitive 2013 report, that there had been a real slowdown of global warming over the past 15 years. It noted that the rate of warming during the period from 1998 through 2012 was “smaller than the rate calculated since 1951,” although the body also cautioned that “Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends.”
Nonetheless, this idea of a global warming slowdown or “pause” was endlessly cited by climate change skeptics and deniers circa 2013. However, more recently, scientific reports have begun to come out challenging the notion.
A dataset update from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, aimed at removing biases in the data, wiped out the “pause” — to much fanfare and controversy. “Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data …. do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,’” the study found. Other recent research, meanwhile, has suggested that the notion of a pause may represent a bias among scientists themselves, has been defined in curiously inconsistent ways by researchers – and in any event, always seems to go away if you simply analyze a long enough time period.
[Seas are now rising faster than they have in 2,800 years, scientists say]
That’s what makes it so striking to find that this debate is very much not over — a group of top scientists has just published a paper in Nature Climate Change robustly defending the idea that, as they put it, “The observed rate of global surface warming since the turn of this century has been considerably less than the average simulated rate” produced by climate change models.
The authors include noted climate researchers Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Benjamin Santer of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and Michael Mann of Penn State University. The research was led by John Fyfe of the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria.
The authors also argue that a large body of research into the causes of the apparent slowdown — which tended to target natural fluctuations, and especially the behavior of the Pacific Ocean — represents valuable work that advances our understanding of “a basic science question that has been studied for at least twenty years: what are the signatures of (and the interactions between) internal decadal variability and the responses to external forcings, such as increasing GHGs or aerosols from volcanic eruptions?”
To be sure, the researchers behind the current paper absolutely do not think that global warming is over or anything of the sort — rather, the argument is that there was a real slowdown that’s scientifically interesting, even if it was brief and is now probably over. After all, even if they paused, temperatures now seem to be rising again, with 2014 and 2015 setting back-to-back global temperature records.
Home
