Jump to content

Speaking Out About Climate Change


Recommended Posts

The idea that temps are stabilizing or decreasing probably comes from misinterpretation of a Met Office report from January. Despite that the Met showed a long term warming trend but with short term natural variability, skeptics jumped all over it.

"Our latest forecast for the next five years show that earth will continue to be at record warm levels similar to those that we've seen over the last decade, and with a fair chance that a new record will be made during that period". - Met Office chief scientist Julia Slingo Jan 2013

Making judgements about global temperature usually boils down to how long you measure temperatures for. Others have given helpful explanations of the difference between short-lived natural climate variability and longer term climate change. Scientists Gavin Schmidt and Stefan Rahmstorf said in a post for science blog Real Climate in 2008 that considering only 10-15 years of temperature is like "analysing the temperature observations from 10-17 April to check whether it really gets warmer during spring."

To demonstrate this, Rahmstorf and Schmidt show the graph below. The red line represents annual global temperature from 1977 to 2007 and each blue line is the average of an eight-year period of data. As the scientists explain, the trends over short periods are variable; sometimes small, sometimes large, sometimes negative - depending on which year you start with. But over a longer time period, the upward trend in global temperatures is clear.

sks_8_year_versus_long_term_trend_400x31

http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/01/all-the-reasons-why-global-warming-hasnt-stopped

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 198
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The idea that temps are stabilizing or decreasing probably comes from misinterpretation of a Met Office report from January. Despite that the Met showed a long term warming trend but with short term natural variability, skeptics jumped all over it.

Give me a break. The entire global warming meme is based on no more than 40 years of data. Prior to 1980 temperatures were declining. Prior to 1940 there was not enough anthropogenic CO2 in the air to make that much of a difference. The recent stall in rising temperatures can be due to one of the following reasons:

1) The 80-90s period experienced faster than expected warming because of natural variations and CO2 sensitivity is lower than believed.

2) The 2000-2010 period experienced slower than expected warming because of natural variations and fast warming will resume in the future.

At this point both are valid hypothesis and only people who reject 1) are unscientific ideologues. Skeptics emphasize 1) only because there are dealing with so many unscientific ideologues in the media and vested interests in the global warming meme who wish to insist that 1) is not a valid hypothesis.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Give me a break. The entire global warming meme...

The recent stall in rising temperatures can be due to one of the following reasons:

1) The 80-90s period experienced faster than expected warming because of natural variations and CO2 sensitivity is lower than believed.

2) The 2000-2010 period experienced slower than expected warming because of natural variations and fast warming will resume in the future.

At this point both are valid hypothesis and only people who reject 1) are unscientific ideologues. Skeptics emphasize 1) only because there are dealing with so many unscientific ideologues in the media and vested interests in the global warming meme who wish to insist that 1) is not a valid hypothesis.

nice unsubstantiated bravado... particularly since you were just caught with your "hide the incline" pants down in the other concurrently running thread!

anyone... like you... who presumes to speak of climate sensitivity in terms of expected warming, over a short decadal period, clearly, that 'anyone' knows nothing about expected/anticipated warming in relation to equilibrium climate sensitivity and long-term feedbacks. It's equally telling for you to play the 'stalled' talking point emphasizing natural variations... while keeping your isolated focus on a narrow segment of warming - a surface-air only segment. As for your own, as you say, ideology... your unsubstantiated kind... why not step-up and speak to air-surface temperature warming in isolation of natural variations... what's happening there - what's the warming trend there? Oh wait, that’s right – yours is the world of noise… in avoidance of the signal! Why not step-up and speak to the full distribution of earth’s warming beyond your preferred isolated narrow segment… you know, where the more than 90% of warming over and above surface-air is going into, most notably the respective ocean layers - (per IPCC AR4 WG1 - estimates of the change in heat content of various components of the Earth’s climate system:

figure-5-4-l.png

Figure 5.4. Energy content changes in different components of the Earth system for two periods (1961–2003 and 1993–2003). Blue bars are for 1961 to 2003, burgundy bars for 1993 to 2003.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gases are off the charts now, starting just after industrial and agricultural revolutions. This isn't natural anymore.

Where's the resulting warming?

Now, according to waldo's sources it's in the oceans. It used to be the 1.5 Degree Fahrenheit temperature change over the past century and the old hockey stick were the parameters. Not there any more so it must be in the oceans.

Yep. besides it isn't global warming anymore it is climate change. If the temperature in the air isn't producing climate

change then the temperature of the deep ocean certainly will.

It's a real problem of keeping ahead of and burying all the facts of anthropogenic climate change to the contrary, ay waldo?.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, according to waldo's sources it's in the oceans. It used to be the 1.5 Degree Fahrenheit temperature change over the past century and the old hockey stick were the parameters. Not there any more so it must be in the oceans.

Of course, waldo does not mention how many years it has taken scientists to manipulate and adjust the ocean data to get it to say what they want it to say and how the data only says what they want because they have introduced discontinuities by spliced records from different data sources. But this is all acceptable practice in climate science because in climate science the theory is never wrong - only data i (until we falsify adjust it). Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where's the resulting warming?

Now, according to waldo's sources it's in the oceans. It used to be the 1.5 Degree Fahrenheit temperature change over the past century and the old hockey stick were the parameters. Not there any more so it must be in the oceans.

Yep. besides it isn't global warming anymore it is climate change. If the temperature in the air isn't producing climate

change then the temperature of the deep ocean certainly will.

It's a real problem of keeping ahead of and burying all the facts of anthropogenic climate change to the contrary, ay waldo?.

A pot of boiling water will be roughly 100°C. Keep it on the burner for 10 min, water evaporates like crazy, yet the water temp in the pot is still 100°C. We know that tonnes of energy was added in the form of heat, but we don't see it if we only measure the temp of the water in the pot.

So where is the warming? 2005 and 2010 are tied for the hottest average atmospheric temperature years on record. Plus to calculate warming in addition to atmospheric heat content you also have to include land, ice and oceans.

Nuccitelli_Fig1.jpg

http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Comment_on_DK12.pdf

Edited by Mighty AC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So where is the warming? 2005 and 2010 are tied for the hottest average atmospheric temperature years on record. Plus to calculate warming in addition to atmospheric heat content you also have to include land, ice and oceans.

Except the warming in the oceans is MUCH less than predicted by the climate models. Here is are plots that shows predictions vs reality: http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/01b-argo-era-model-data.png

http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/30-ukmo-ohc-0-2000m-v-models-to-750m.

The chart you provided is an excercise in deception because it hides the recent plateau in ocean temperatures by averaging over 5 years and hides phoney jump in 2003 caused by splicing together to different datasets:

http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/28-noaa_upper_ocean_heat_content.png

The splicing problem is a good example of group think can lead otherwise honest people to manipulate data into showing them what they want to see rather than what is actually there.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're saying the earth is accumulating a serious amount of heat, but our models aren't completely accurate?

I am saying that the oceans are warming like the atmosphere but at rate much slower than claimed by the models. This gives us reason to question the reliability of the models the predictions of doom which they are used to produce.

Keep in mind that CO2 mitigation is an irrational policy given the choice of technologies available to us today and the huge costs associated with CO2 reductions. These policies make even less sense if the planet is warming slower than previously claimed.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's just not true. That 90% nonsense needs to stop.

How do you propose to stop it,by muzzling or with cash...what exactly?

Seriously, if this is all just the result of a vast conspiracy to defraud the public to raise money by fabricating lies then why has no one been charged, why is the AGW conspiracy not a punishable crime?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, if this is all just the result of a vast conspiracy to defraud the public to raise money by fabricating lies then why has no one been charged, why is the AGW conspiracy not a punishable crime?

If advocating policies simply because they would line one's pocket is a crime then every politician and lobbyist would be in jail. The only point that needs to be made: scientists looking for public money are really no different from any other lobby group and should be treated with the same skepticism. The rest what you said is silly hyperbole. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If advocating policies simply because they would line one's pocket is a crime then every politician and lobbyist would be in jail.

What is the opposite of hyperbole...hypobole?

It is a crime when politicians and lobbyists conspire over public funds to fraudulently line their pockets and we do try to put them in jail when they commit fraud as blatant as this

How can you make light of a type of fraud that you otherwise regard as being so serious that it threatens to destroy the economy? I mean, if this was al Queda threatening to destroy the economy skeptics would be quite seriously regarding and proclaiming themselves as vulnerable innocent victims and be screaming blue bloody murder for military action.

Put up or shut up, why isn't this attempt to destroy our economy a serious crime? Why are you not pressuring governments to prosecute a war against it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a crime when politicians and lobbyists conspire over public funds to fraudulently line their pockets and we do try to put them in jail when they commit fraud as blatant as this

No we don't. Politicians and lobbiest always rationalize the spending that benefits them personally as a public good and they are never jailed simply because others show that their arguments for the 'public good' are full or holes. They are simply ignored.

You are playing a dishonest game: exaggerate what was claimed and express outrage over a fake claim.

Criminal fraud is reserved for people who directly line their pockets and do not construct a 'public good' justification. If someone constructs a semi-plausible 'public good' argument then one is not guilty of fraud: only lobbying.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am saying that the oceans are warming like the atmosphere but at rate much slower than claimed by the models. This gives us reason to question the reliability of the models the predictions of doom which they are used to produce.

Keep in mind that CO2 mitigation is an irrational policy given the choice of technologies available to us today and the huge costs associated with CO2 reductions. These policies make even less sense if the planet is warming slower than previously claimed.

This slower than predicted warming is still dramatic. Even if we ignore the serious climate issues our ridiculously high CO2 levels are acidifying oceans, damaging reefs and fish stocks. Plus, there are the more direct health related, pollution issues caused by burning fossil fuels.

I find it hard to believe that people still cling to cost arguments to back up their support for fossil fuels. Old dirty energy is extremely expensive. Add up the pollution, health, subsidy, social, risk management and the direct costs of mining and using the fossil energy and it becomes the biggest scam in history. An extremely conservative estimate by the International Monetary Fund states that the world subsidizes fossil energy to the tune of $2 trillion annually. We're paying through the roof to kill the planet, wildlife, crops and ourselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Global Warming and Climate Change are descriptive terms of symptoms. The core issue is the combination of Chemical Winter and Nuclear Radiation/Fallout.

The reason we should be more concerned about the core issues rather than the symptoms is that the core issues affect DNA globally for all species. That means life on earth as we know it is being threatened by the return of earth's atmosphere to pre-life supporting conditions.

The cause is of course the well discussed in this thread man-made emissions. But until the problem is defined properly and honestly no real progress can be made. Conservation without a significant human population decrease is meaningless. That is because the number of people world-wide who currently don't have access to emission generating modern technology is about to make a quantum leap forward. No matter how much we conserve it will be a mere blip in the avalanche of new demand globally. Each new person who enters the emission generation stream increased atmospheric heat each and every time he or she uses a power source for heat, transportation, refrigeration, transportation, cooking, laundry and so on. The sheer number of the increase will drive up atmospheric heat way beyond any attempt at conservation.

Emissions from power plants of whatever stripe cause the most emissions. But the emissions I haven't seen talked about here are the Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) that are along with nuclear radiation causing genetic alterations to all life on earth. Since a paradigm shift like that affects the viability of all life on the planet, not just us, it behooves us to discuss the problem face on, rather than discuss peripheral issues ad nauseum as has been done so far in this thread.

When you consider that the oil companies and the oil rich countries have as goals the extraction of all the fossil fuel currently in the ground as fast as possible and burning them to the last drop, that tells you one important thing about Global Warming, All of that amount of future combustion is going to raise atmospheric temperature. Using those numbers accurately and in context it is possible to calculate how fast we are going to drive up Global ambient temperatures.

From there you can then turn to the desertification of Africa and using an even simpler formula; the advance of desertification southwards down the continent at 48 kilometers per year and you can then figure out how long life in Africa has before Armaggedon is reached - about fifty years since the desertification only has to destroy most of the Congo before Africa's billions realize the will die of thirst unless they march on Europe. They will die in the process since Europe will have to fend them off be exterminating them in every way possible.

They'll have to die one way or another because Europe doesn't have the resources to accommodate an invasion on that scale. So the Africans will have to be exterminated before they get that far.

With that in mind you have to consider what the end result will be having supplied aid to Africa to help them increase their unsupportable populations. When we send aid to Africa, we are easing our consciences now but down the line we are setting the world up for the biggest blood bath since the extinction of the dinosaurs.

That folks is Chemical Winter and where we are surely going if we don't define our atmospheric dilemma properly and deal with it as if we want to survive as a species. Most of you reading this thread are going to be alive when this future I've described happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i just read the tail end of Mighty AC's comment about the fossil fuel industry being the biggest scam in history. Actually, as a scam it pales into insignificance when compared to the scams going in the medical profession. I'll address that in a different Topic Category.

For what is going on in the fossil fuel sector to be a scam it would have to be a secret outside of the industry and it's far from that. Plenty of people know about it but the addiction is so entrenched we would destroy our global economy if we divorce ourselves from it too quickly. Every aspect of life today is dependent on the fossil fuel industry and its derivatives. It's not just about oil, gas and coal. it's about every damned thing we use from concrete to toilet paper to electronics to food production. To interfere with the process too quickly would toss us back towards the stone-age in a single generation as much as we would all like to be rid of it.

There is a direct analogy between cigarette smoking and our addiction to fossil fuels. Heavy smokers kill their immune systems with the 4000 odd deadly chemicals in cigarette smoke. Over time, their immune systems are replaced by the constant infusions of poisons which become resident in every tissue in the body. If a person in that state tries to quit cold turkey, the person goes into chemical shock, has a heart attack and either dies or is severely damaged. Those that fail to quit re-establish the chemicals as their immune system. Earth's commerce is based on those very same chemicals down to the last molecule. We have to transition out of the addiction slowly and carefully and that is exactly what we are trying to do. But the problem is insoluble without reducing the planet's human population in lock step and that is exactly what we are not doing.

That in a nutshell tells you how good our chances of success are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Put up or shut up, why isn't this attempt to destroy our economy a serious crime?

Do you know what policies are destroying our economy? If you know then you would think that politicians should know?

Politicians will just say they were wrong in their assessment and no one knew what would happen, not even eyeball. Because they don't know is that a crime? It certainly is criminal negligence in my view. They should know but then even the leading experts don't know so how can they know.

You disagree with me. I disagree with you. Do either of us know?

Some scientist in this debate may have supplied the rest of the scientific world with peer reviewed, clinically proven wrong information. After that everyone is wrong.

You might like to read of the story of Diedrik Stapel. http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/11/03/fake_science_dutch_psychologist_made_up_results.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diederik_Stapel

Edited by Pliny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This slower than predicted warming is still dramatic.

It may be but the cause is in question. It is now questionable that the cause is of anthropogenic origin. The models based upon anthropogenic causation haven't proven out. Edited by Pliny
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

It may be but the cause is in question.

no - there is no question. The cause, the principal causal tie to the relatively recent accelerated global warming is... and remains... anthropogenic sourced CO2 emissions.

It is now questionable that the cause is of anthropogenic origin.

no - given consensus scientific understanding, it is not questionable... don't hesitate to offer, and substantiate, your alternate principal cause; one other than anthropogenic sourced CO2 emissions. Should we alert the world's scientific bodies and global media outlets of your pending revelation that will cast aside decades upon decades of scientific research and understanding?

The models based upon anthropogenic causation haven't proven out.

no. Please provide your examples of recognized/accepted general circulation models that can explain the last century of earth's climate behaviour... without including CO2 emission sourced warming.

are you stating that models are the sole source of substantiating evidence that supports the consensus attribution that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal cause of global warming... the sole source?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you stating that models are the sole source of substantiating evidence that supports the consensus attribution that anthropogenic sourced CO2 is the principal cause of global warming... the sole source?

Why not? He's also saying the entire world was likely duped by one scientist.

An economist would be my guess, whoever it was that duped us into thinking economics is scientific.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,714
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    wopsas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Venandi went up a rank
      Explorer
    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...