Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.

batvette

Critical Thinker
batvette
Joined
Dec 11, 2012
Messages
470
This thread is a continuation of the original Global Warming discussion. That thread may be found here. Thank you.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Loss Leader





Pixel42 said:
But if average global temperatures rose whilst one particular factor was producing a negative forcing it's safe to conclude that that particular factor was not a contributor to that particular period of warming.
Click to expand...

You're completely wrong in claiming that there was a negative forcing from the solar factor. Why are you assuming that when its output was still greater than its average over the previous 400 years?
Wouldn't the sun have had to have LESS output than its 400 year average to be a negative influence? No merely be less hot than its highest peak?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
batvette said:
You're completely wrong in claiming that there was a negative forcing from the solar factor. Why are you assuming that when its output was still greater than its average over the previous 400 years?
Wouldn't the sun have had to have LESS output than its 400 year average to be a negative influence? No merely be less hot than its highest peak?
Click to expand...
I was answering your question about the contributions of the various factors over the last 35 years only, during which average global temperatures have risen whilst average solar irradiance has slightly reduced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png
 
Pixel42 said:
I was answering your question about the contributions of the various factors over the last 35 years only, during which average global temperatures have risen whilst average solar irradiance has slightly reduced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Solar-cycle-data.png
Click to expand...

If we were only looking at temperature data over the 35 year period that would be a valid observation but we aren't.
Now you're implying it was my question that's caused you to improperly apply data to the discussion.
Let me repeat the point.
Why would you apply the solar influence as a cooling factor in the overall scheme in the latter quarter or so of the 20th century when its output was still higher than the average output over the time the temperature is being observed?
Why look at temperature over 400 or 2000 years then look at solar activity for just 35 then pretend it's meaningful?
The word "equilibrium" is used and the way you apply the solar factor is considering that the equilibrium starts at a point when the sun's output was at a 400 year peak and all should be compared to that in the 35 years since.
 
batvette said:
If we were only looking at temperature data over the 35 year period that would be a valid observation but we aren't.
Click to expand...
You asked a specific question, I answered it. The exchange is still there for all to read, and is clearly about the possible sources of climate forcings in the last 35 years.

No-one has disputed that solar irradiance has been producing a positive forcing for most of the last 400 years. It cannot, however, account for more than a fraction of the warming that has occurred in the last century or so, as several posters have already explained.
 
batvette said:
If we were only looking at temperature data over the 35 year period that would be a valid observation but we aren't.
Click to expand...
That is correct, batvette, - we are looking at all of the temperature and TSI data.
The science as explained in Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming? shows that
  1. In the last 35 years that output fro the Sun has decreased wile temperatures have increased. Thus the Sun is not responsible for the global temperature increase in the last 35 years.
  2. "In the past century, the Sun can explain some of the increase in global temperatures, but a relatively small amount."
batvette said:
Why would you apply the solar influence as a cooling factor in the overall scheme in the latter quarter or so of the 20th century when its output was still higher than the average output over the time the temperature is being observed?
Click to expand...
For the simple reason that the Sun's output was lower than the average output over the time the temperature was being observed :eek:! That is what a deceasing trend means.

No one "applied" the solar influence as a cooling factor. The solar influence was measured to have a cooling factor:
  • "Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used multiple linear regression to quantify and remove the effects of the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and solar and volcanic activity from the surface and lower troposphere temperature data. They found that since 1979, solar activity has had a very slight cooling effect of between -0.014 and -0.023°C per decade, depending on the data set (Table 1, Figure 3)."
  • "Like Foster and Rahmstorf, Lean and Rind (2008) performed a multiple linear regression on the temperature data, and found that while solar activity can account for about 11% of the global warming from 1889 to 2006, it can only account for 1.6% of the warming from 1955 to 2005, and had a slight cooling effect (-0.004°C per decade) from 1979 to 2005."
batvette said:
Why look at temperature over 400 or 2000 years then look at solar activity for just 35 then pretend it's meaningful?
Click to expand...
Why do you think that the scientists did something as idiotic as this, batvette?
The scientists looked at the temperature over 400 years and the solar output for 400 years, e.g.
"Total Solar Irradiance from 1713 to 1996 (Wang 2005)"
"Total Solar Irradiance as measured by satellite from 1978 to 2010"
​
batvette said:
The word "equilibrium" is used and the way you apply the solar factor is considering that the equilibrium starts at a point when the sun's output was at a 400 year peak and all should be compared to that in the 35 years since.
Click to expand...
What is this "400 year peak", batvette - do you think that the Sun's output was actually at a peak 400 years ago?

That is not what the word "equilibrium" means, batvette:
equilibrium (plural equilibriums or equilibria)
  1. The condition of a system in which competing influences are balanced, resulting in no net change. ...
  2. (physics) The state of a body at rest or in uniform motion in which the resultant of all forces on it is zero.
  3. (chemistry) The state of a reaction in which the rates of the forward and reverse reactions are the same.
  4. Mental balance.
Click to expand...
 
batvette said:
You're completely wrong in claiming that there was a negative forcing from the solar factor. Why are you assuming that when its output was still greater than its average over the previous 400 years?
Wouldn't the sun have had to have LESS output than its 400 year average to be a negative influence? No merely be less hot than its highest peak?
Click to expand...

no , not at all. you did not do much reading on the topic, beside some denier Blogs?
get yourself informed on the topic.

when the TSI is sinking, thats a negative forcing no matter how high the TSI was before, when the TSI is rising ist a positive forcing. no matter how high or low the TSI was before.

Solar and climate experts from around the world have looked into this. and ist clear that the late 20th century warming cannot be explained by the sun, actually the only explenation that works is the increased CO2 Levels.

face it. those are the Facts, deal with them.
 
batvette said:
You're completely wrong in claiming that there was a negative forcing from the solar factor. Why are you assuming that when its output was still greater than its average over the previous 400 years?
Click to expand...

AGAIN, any forcing more than ~30 years old is already fully built in, the Earth does not continue to warm forever due to a forcing. Even if you don’t understand how it works, the assumption of indefinite warming in response to a positive forcing IS what your faulty assumption is built on.
batvette said:
Wouldn't the sun have had to have LESS output than its 400 year average to be a negative influence? No merely be less hot than its highest peak?
Click to expand...
No. The Sun needs to have less output than 30 years ago in order to have a cooling influence. This is because the Earth was already as warm as it was ever going to get from that level of solar output and any decrease can only reduce global temperatures.
 
New report from the WMO http://library.wmo.int/pmb_ged/wmo_1119_en.pdf
the warmest decade
The period 2001–2010 was the warmest
decade on record since modern
meteorological records began around the
year 1850. The global average temperature
of the air above the Earth’s surface over the
10-year period is estimated to have been
14.47°C ± 0.1°C. This is 0.47°C ± 0.1°C above
the 1961–1990 global average of +14.0°C and
+0.21 ± 0.1°C above the 1991–2000 global
average. It is 0.88°C higher than the average
temperature of the first decade of the 20th
century (1901–1910).
A pronounced increase in the global
temperature occurred over the four decades
1971–2010. The global temperature increased
at an average estimated rate of 0.17°C per
decade during that period, while the trend
over the whole period 1880–2010 was only
0.062°C per decade. Furthermore, the
increase of 0.21°C in the average decadal
temperature from 1991–2000 to 2001–2010
is larger than the increase from 1981–1990
to 1991–2000 (+0.14°C) and larger than for
any other two successive decades since the
beginning of instrumental records.
Click to expand...
 
Deserts 'Greening' from Rising Carbon Dioxide

Deserts 'Greening' from Rising Carbon Dioxide: Green Foliage Boosted Across the World's Arid Regions
Science News

So ...

CO2 is sure enough increasing big time. Really no question about that bit.

We also know there has been no warming since the 1990s.

The world ecosystem is adapting and the outcome is beneficial to humans.

So maybe crisis politics is not only not the answer, but actually harmful to the world if it's successful.

That's aside from arguments about it being ineffective or freedom and prosperity being harmed.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
Deserts 'Greening' from Rising Carbon Dioxide: Green Foliage Boosted Across the World's Arid Regions
Science News

So ...

CO2 is sure enough increasing big time. Really no question about that bit.

We also know there has been no warming since the 1990s.

The world ecosystem is adapting and the outcome is beneficial to humans.

So maybe crisis politics is not only not the answer, but actually harmful to the world if it's successful.

That's aside from arguments about it being ineffective or freedom and prosperity being harmed.
Click to expand...
Did you read the whole thing?

Probably not.

The readings in the desert were commented on because it's relatively easy to measure the changes. It's almost impossible to measure the changes in other habitats because they are so small.

Yes there is a CO2 fertilisation effect, but it's very small and easily swamped by other factors - lack of water, nutrients, suitable soil types, etc.

ETA: Seconded on wot Geni said. That really is a very tired old meme.
 
Last edited:
Abdul Alhazred said:
Deserts 'Greening' from Rising Carbon Dioxide: Green Foliage Boosted Across the World's Arid Regions
Science News

So ...

CO2 is sure enough increasing big time. Really no question about that bit.

We also know there has been no warming since the 1990s.

The world ecosystem is adapting and the outcome is beneficial to humans.

So maybe crisis politics is not only not the answer, but actually harmful to the world if it's successful.

That's aside from arguments about it being ineffective or freedom and prosperity being harmed.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Warming is occurring in the deep oceans at an unprecedented rate. Water has a high heat capacity, but it's not infinite. When this little atmospheric warming hiatus ends, and heat starts moving back to the atmosphere, it's going to pack a hell of a punch.
 
From the OP:

"On the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas; however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example," Dr Donohue said.
Click to expand...
(Bolding added)

Here in the Mojave desert where I live, increases in growth rates lead to small annual plants filling the gaps between the larger perennial plants. These gaps would otherwise have been bare ground (it is a desert, after all). Without the bare ground between the larger plants, wildfire can easily move from one perennial to another. So, we get many more active fire seasons than we had before. This burns off the larger plants, leaving us only with the little annual plants, for a net loss of biomass. In many areas, this overall loss of biomass is quite significant relative to the total present.

In fact, it is quite smoky today, due to some large fires burning over 100 miles west of here.

ETA: We get a loss of biodiversity as well, as the little annual plants are mostly non-native and they perpetuate the fire cycle in a way that does not allow the perennial natives to recover.
 
Last edited:
Form the article:

"Our work was able to tease-out the CO2 fertilisation effect by using mathematical modelling together with satellite data adjusted to take out the observed effects of other influences such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes."
 
crescent said:
From the OP:

(Bolding added)

Here in the Mojave desert where I live, increases in growth rates lead to small annual plants filling the gaps between the larger perennial plants. These gaps would otherwise have been bare ground (it is a desert, after all). Without the bare ground between the larger plants, wildfire can easily move from one perennial to another. So, we get many more active fire seasons than we had before. This burns off the larger plants, leaving us only with the little annual plants, for a net loss of biomass. In many areas, this overall loss of biomass is quite significant relative to the total present.

In fact, it is quite smoky today, due to some large fires burning over 100 miles west of here.

ETA: We get a loss of biodiversity as well, as the little annual plants are mostly non-native and they perpetuate the fire cycle in a way that does not allow the perennial natives to recover.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I was going to say. More 'greening' = wildfires in non-fire-adapted environments. Witness: cheat grass.
 
This is the best I can do on short notice, but I won't really get into it before this evening:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023

in the meantime let me see if I understand the contrary position correctly.

  • Climate change is not just happening, it is a crisis.

    As it might be terrorism, gun violence, or childhood obesity. And that requires giving more power than ever to the same old corrupt politicians. Or the UN.

    Freedom? Prosperity? Constitution?

    Oh please. It's a crisis.
 
Last edited:
Abdul Alhazred said:
This is the best I can do on short notice, but I won't really get into it before this evening:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22567023
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced you actually read the stuff you link to. In that BBC article, these are the first few lines:

Scientists say the recent downturn in the rate of global warming will lead to lower temperature rises in the short-term............But long-term, the expected temperature rises will not alter significantly
Click to expand...

A short-term slow down in the rate of rise. That isn't a reversal of the trend...simply a slowing down of the rate of rise, completely undermining your silly claim that there has been no warming since the 90's..

Mike
 
The OP is linked to a Question and Answer section:

Q: Will this new information change the climate debate?

A: No, these results should not change the climate change debate. They do, however, provide a little more understanding on which to base the debate.
Whilst it may seem that an increase in the uptake of carbon by vegetation would serve to offset the rise in atmospheric CO2 levels, the amounts in question are too small to make a significant difference to the overall global picture.

Q: So does this mean climate change is good for the planet?

A: This does not mean that climate change is good for the planet. Whilst CO2-induced increases in cover across many of the world's deserts and semi-deserts will most likely have some beneficial effects, there will also be associated changes that are seen to be detrimental, like possible decreases in surface water availability or the encroachment of woody vegetation into native pastures.
Click to expand...

Abdul Alhazred said:
.... in the meantime let me see if I understand the contrary position correctly.

  • Climate change is not just happening, it is a crisis.

    As it might be terrorism, gun violence, or childhood obesity. And that requires giving more power than ever to the same old corrupt politicians. Or the UN.

    Freedom. Prosperity? Constitution?

    Oh please. It's a crisis.
Click to expand...

I would settle for admitting that human caused climate change is happening. You don't like it, I don't like it, but what we like or don't like does not matter. It is happening anyway. The truth is sometimes, you know, inconvenient.

ETA: To keep this on track as somewhat separate from the general topic of climate change - the "Greening" effect is very limited and has only been documented in Australia. Not all plants might benefit from it, much the way some plants can take advantage of excess soil nitrogen compared to other plants. Unfortunately, the plants that like the nitrogen are the same plants that promote frequent wildfire. This means that in many deserts, more rapid plant growth leads to more fires, and less fixed carbon, less biomass, not more. You drew the wrong results from your two links, they do not actually draw the conclusions that you inferred from them.
 
Last edited:
Back when I lived in Roswell, NM, we noticed the greening up of the deserts. Usually after a good rain (Rare, but they do happen)
I defined the color as "Grimly-determined green".
It doesn't last long...
 
CO2 fertilization effect also thought to be responsible for change from open grasslands to thicket in Southern Africa.

Namibia, a generally arid, thinly populated country to the northwest of South Africa, has been particularly hard hit; about 26 million hectares (64 million acres) of the country has been invaded by undesirable woody plants, which smother grazing areas. Because trees use more rain than grasses, they also significantly reduce groundwater recharge and runoff into rivers. The loss of grasslands is one reason the country’s beef production is now 50 to 70 percent below 1950s levels, according to some estimates. Bush encroachment costs Namibia’s small economy as much as $170 million per year.
Click to expand...

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_surprising_role_of_co2_in_changes_on_the_african_savanna/2663/
 
Being a lazy SOB, I let others do my research for me.

Based on links posted here,

here http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=680791#p680791 (SC)

and here http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=20702#p346257 (Shermerland)

and applying a bit of critical thinking, I think it's fair to come to the following conclusion:


That there has indeed been no "global warming" as such since the 1990s, but it doesn't count (for all sorts of good reasons), there is too climate change.

So even though I got the bare facts sort of straight the first time, I still had a bad attitude and needed to learn to love Big Brother. :)
 
Mikemcc said:
ETA: Seconded on wot Geni said. That really is a very tired old meme.
Click to expand...


Yeah, I mean, the annual NASA reports on the average global temperatures show that nine of the ten warmest years on record have occurred since 2000. How exactly there is no warming since the 1990s when nine of the ten warmest years recorded happened after the 1990s is, I guess, left to the reader as an exercise in mental gymnastics.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
Deserts 'Greening' from Rising Carbon Dioxide: Green Foliage Boosted Across the World's Arid Regions
Science News
Click to expand...

Interestingly, I just came across this:

Increase in forest water-use efficiency as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rise (Nature)

Terrestrial plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere through photosynthesis, a process that is accompanied by the loss of water vapour from leaves1. The ratio of water loss to carbon gain, or water-use efficiency, is a key characteristic of ecosystem function that is central to the global cycles of water, energy and carbon2. Here we analyse direct, long-term measurements of whole-ecosystem carbon and water exchange3. We find a substantial increase in water-use efficiency in temperate and boreal forests of the Northern Hemisphere over the past two decades. We systematically assess various competing hypotheses to explain this trend, and find that the observed increase is most consistent with a strong CO2 fertilization effect. The results suggest a partial closure of stomata1—small pores on the leaf surface that regulate gas exchange—to maintain a near-constant concentration of CO2 inside the leaf even under continually increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. The observed increase in forest water-use efficiency is larger than that predicted by existing theory and 13 terrestrial biosphere models. The increase is associated with trends of increasing ecosystem-level photosynthesis and net carbon uptake, and decreasing evapotranspiration. Our findings suggest a shift in the carbon- and water-based economics of terrestrial vegetation, which may require a reassessment of the role of stomatal control in regulating interactions between forests and climate change, and a re-evaluation of coupled vegetation–climate models.
Click to expand...

And here's a NY Times article on the new study:
Some Trees Use Less Water Amid Rising Carbon Dioxide, Paper Says

The fate of the world’s forests on a warming planet has long been one of the great unanswered questions about climate change. Now, new research is complicating the picture further, suggesting that big shifts are already under way in how forests work.

A paper published Wednesday suggests that trees in at least some parts of the world are having to pull less water out of the ground to achieve a given amount of growth. Some scientists say they believe that this may be a direct response to the rising level of carbon dioxide in the air from human emissions, though that has not yet been proved.

If the research holds up, it suggests some potential benefits for forests. They might be able to make do with less water, for instance, becoming more resilient in the face of drought and higher temperatures as climate change proceeds.

But the new finding also has potential downsides, scientists said. The immense volume of water that trees pull out of the ground winds up in the atmosphere, helping supply moisture to farming areas downwind of forests. So if trees use less water, that could ultimately mean less rain for thirsty crops in at least some regions of the world.

Several scientists predicted that the new research would set off a flurry of efforts to clarify whether trees are really using less, and what the implications might be, not only for forests but for the human and ecological systems that depend on existing patterns of moisture flow.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Has anyone ever disputed that AGW will have beneficial effects in some areas? It's just that all the evidence suggests they will be greatly outweighed by the deleterious effects.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
Being a lazy SOB, I let others do my research for me.

Based on links posted here,

here http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=680791#p680791 (SC)

and here http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=20702#p346257 (Shermerland)

and applying a bit of critical thinking, I think it's fair to come to the following conclusion:


That there has indeed been no "global warming" as such since the 1990s, but it doesn't count (for all sorts of good reasons), there is too climate change.

So even though I got the bare facts sort of straight the first time, I still had a bad attitude and needed to learn to love Big Brother. :)
Click to expand...

Despite this being outright climate denial, and thus, off-topic for a thread that is already pretty close to being in avoidance of the moderated thread, I can't let this piece of climate denial myth go unanswered.

It is not reasonable to come to the conclusion that there hasn't been any global warming since the 1990s, as that is completely wrong. The decade from 2001 to 2010 was the warmest decade on record.

Only if one is dumb/dishonest enough to start a temperature graph with 1998 as a start year - a year with a massive el niño event - and a la niña year as an end year can one produce a graph that misleadingly shows a stop in warming. This - of course - is simply lying by statistics.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
That there has indeed been no "global warming" as such since the 1990s, but it doesn't count (for all sorts of good reasons), there is too climate change.
Click to expand...

This is still incorrectly characterized. The period since the mid 90’s falls within the range you would expect given the established warming trend.


To calculate a meaningful trend you need something in the neighborhood of 20+ years of data. If you have less than this you will always be able to cherry pick “periods of no warming” due to the natural variation in year to year temperatures.

Saying there is “no warming” over shorter periods is akin to flipping a coin 100X but saying that because you got heads 4 of your last 5 flips and using that to say 80% of future coin flips come up heads.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
Being a lazy SOB, I let others do my research for me.
...
That there has indeed been no "global warming" as such since the 1990s, but it doesn't count (for all sorts of good reasons), there is too climate change.
[/quoyte][
Sorry, Abdul Alhazred, but these "others" are ignorant or lying to you. You need to find better sources who know something about climate science.

The bare fact is there has indeed been global warming since the 1990s as shown in the scientific literature. Try reading a reliable source that backs their statements up with science, e.g. What has global warming done since 1998?
The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino.
Click to expand...
The primary point is that the total heat content of the Earth (ocean + land + atmosphere) has continued to increase, especially in the oceans.
Click to expand...
 
I think this is a good oppurtunity for someone on the Denialist side to step up and give their best argument for whatever "Denialism" they believe in. This would include:
Peer-reviewed articles
Statements by experts in a relevant field.
Challenges to the evidence that supports the consensus view
 
[SNIP]
Edited by kmortis: 
Removed personal comments


That there has indeed been no "global warming" as such since the 1990s ...
Click to expand...
There has been global warming since the 1990's.

... but it doesn't count (for all sorts of good reasons) ...
Click to expand...
The warming does count, as evedenced by the way climate has changed.

... there is too climate change.
Click to expand...
Indeed there is, caused by global warming.

So even though I got the bare facts sort of straight the first time ...
Click to expand...
I'll take your word that you're lazy, but the rest you got completely wrong. A complete absence of critical thinking and scientifigc knowledge probably underlies that, along with the laziness.
... I still had a bad attitude and needed to learn to love Big Brother. :)
Click to expand...
As you're such a good example of the case, perhaps you can explain why right-wingers tend to be so immature? The determined ignorance I can understand, since reality is so unlike the right-wing image of it, but the refusal to grow up is strange. I've known plenty of immature Marxists but they generally grow out of it; right-wingers so often carry it to the grave.

The deniers' "No warming since ..." started as early as 2005, and was since 1998. From there it progressed to no statistically significant warming since 1995 back in 2010 (the data ran to Sep 2009, as I recall; statistical signficance was reached a few months later). Lazy people drop "statistically signifcant" of course; far too many letters to type. 1995 has now gone via "mid-90's" to "the 90's". Soon it'll be plain "since 1990", to be followed by "the late 80's" when the next El Nino comes along (as it surely will) and there's a new record year for surface temperatures. Of course, your critical thinking skills will no doubt be up to calling the new record a hoax. If you can be bothered, that is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Abdul Alhazred said:
Being a lazy SOB, I let others do my research for me.

Based on links posted here,

here http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=680791#p680791 (SC)

and here http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=20702#p346257 (Shermerland)

and applying a bit of critical thinking, I think it's fair to come to the following conclusion
Click to expand...

Having looked at the links you provide all I see is a stream of people telling you exactly what we're telling you here and you not engaging with them. Your "conclusion" bears no relation to any of it. My conclusion (from your contributions over the years) is that your conclusions were all arrived at before you were 21.

Looking at those links you selected it seems the "no global warming since 1998", with added fuzziness as to the year concerned, the small component (surface temperatures) concerned, and the nature of statistical significance, is one of denialism's few crutches at the moment. Desert greening observable only by spectrographic analysis is no response to the very obvious and telegenic effect of drought on lands once green and productive. Is that fair or scientific? No, but neither is the denialist presentation of "desert greening" as being something significant.
 
Abdul Alhazred said:
...there has indeed been no "global warming" as such since the 1990s...
Click to expand...

Reality disagrees with that statement:



The warming that happened was almost precisely the one we would expect in the late 90's. That we didn't observe the hysterical musings that right-wing pundits like to pass as predictions of climate scientists just means that said pundits were full of it...
 
Megalodon said:
Reality disagrees with that statement:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_2814f244f26b9f76.png[/qimg]

The warming that happened was almost precisely the one we would expect in the late 90's. That we didn't observe the hysterical musings that right-wing pundits like to pass as predictions of climate scientists just means that said pundits were full of it...
Click to expand...
It's that pesky 1998 datapoint that is the deniers best friend. That graph does show just how much of a freaky outlier it is though.
 
Mikemcc said:
It's that pesky 1998 datapoint that is the deniers best friend. That graph does show just how much of a freaky outlier it is though.
Click to expand...

I've actually cherry-picked it as the end of the first regression, so that it becomes clear how wrong the "no warming since the 90s" meme is.

Also, deniers like to avoid talking about the Arctic sea-ice death spiral (more than 30 years before what was forecast), the huge amount of freak weather events occurring, the sea level rise, the almost unbelievable increase in ocean heat content... all those pesky little things that reality throws into the gears of their conspiracy theories.
 
Megalodon said:
I've actually cherry-picked it as the end of the first regression, so that it becomes clear how wrong the "no warming since the 90s" meme is.

Also, deniers like to avoid talking about the Arctic sea-ice death spiral (more than 30 years before what was forecast), the huge amount of freak weather events occurring, the sea level rise, the almost unbelievable increase in ocean heat content... all those pesky little things that reality throws into the gears of their conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...
WattsUpMyButt has a piece about freak weather events in the past to explain all the current ones away. They always speak of the Arctic sea-ice in March and April - the recovery months. Mostly, though, they're talking about their own victimhood. That and the threat of an Ice Age.

This is the long tail of denial we spoke of years ago, if you recall :). Soon they will merge with the Great Conspiracy of All Things Since Like Forever, to be lost to these mundane dimensions we sheeple confine ourselves to.

As Mikemcc says, that graph does point up the unusual nature of 1998. As ever a picture does the work of many words about record El Ninos and statistical significance.
 
CapelDodger said:
They always speak of the Arctic sea-ice in March and April - the recovery months.
Click to expand...

They had a good run until June this year, with the extent close to the new NSIDC 1981-2010 baseline. July has proven to be a disaster, and we might see another record low this September. There is no victimhood like being pounded by reality...

This is the long tail of denial we spoke of years ago, if you recall :). Soon they will merge with the Great Conspiracy of All Things Since Like Forever, to be lost to these mundane dimensions we sheeple confine ourselves to.
Click to expand...

Too much money for their lies to spread, too many distractions for the public to notice that their hair is burning and their toes are wet... Obama tested the waters and made some timid advances in the right direction. We'll see what comes out of it.

As Mikemcc says, that graph does point up the unusual nature of 1998. As ever a picture does the work of many words about record El Ninos and statistical significance.
Click to expand...

If you insert 2011 and 2012 the trendlines are indistinguishable. And the funny thing about a big El Niño is that it will happen again. A 98 Niño happening in 2014 would put the GTA close to 0.9... that would be almost 0.3 above 98's anomaly. Fun times would be had by all...
 
Megalodon said:
...

the huge amount of freak weather events occurring

...
Click to expand...
Where is or has this happened, and how does one tie any specific or even group of events to AGW? It remains a controversial contention in my understanding
 
AlBell said:
Where is or has this happened, and how does one tie any specific or even group of events to AGW? It remains a controversial contention in my understanding
Click to expand...

An example would be the extreme heat wave in Russia a couple years back that shattered records for the last 500 years. In a non-warming world (pre 1900 temperatures) it would have been something like 1 in 1000 year event. Using mid 20th century as the norm it works out to be something like a 1 in 100 year event. Using current norms it comes out to be something like a 1 in 30 year event.

While there is still a small possibility of a natural event like this the overwhelming likelihood is that it was caused by global warming. It’s still a relatively uncommon event but something that will occur with far greater frequencies. Meanwhile warm temperatures that used to be rare in the region are now common, occurring every couple years.
 
AlBell said:
Where is or has this happened, and how does one tie any specific or even group of events to AGW? It remains a controversial contention in my understanding
Click to expand...

While one cannot tie any particular weather event to AGW with absolute certainty
There is growing empirical evidence that warming temperatures cause more intense hurricanes, heavier rainfalls and flooding, increased conditions for wildfires and dangerous heat waves.
Click to expand...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming-intermediate.htm
 
AlBell said:
Where is or has this happened, and how does one tie any specific or even group of events to AGW? It remains a controversial contention in my understanding
Click to expand...
AlBell, I think that Megalodon is overstating things with "the huge amount of freak weather events occurring".
It is more that there is a increasing trend of outlying weather events (droughts, floods, storms, ice breakups) happening which is what is expected from global warming. Have a look at the WMO report, The Global Climate 2001-2010, A Decade of Climate Extremes (a bit overwhelming at 100 pages though!).

There is plenty of discussion on Skeptical Science, e.g. New Research Shows Humans Causing More Strong Hurricanes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom