Climate Change

The Forum is the place to go for more serious non-computer-related discussions. The rules of conduct here are more strict than they are elsewhere on X-bit labs. Adult language should be kept to a bare minimum. All posts must be related to the topic thread.

Moderators: CPUagnostic, MTX, Celt, Hammer_Time, Sauron_Daz, Tacitus, Anna

Climate Change

Postby Fuzz » Fri Dec 06, 2013 11:45 am

Continued from Canada Govt. thread...
It's not the penguins I hate, so much as the idea of penguins.
Image
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.” - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Fuzz
X-bit Penguin Hater
 
Posts: 7875
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:38 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Re: Climate Change

Postby Fuzz » Fri Dec 06, 2013 12:09 pm

So Dire, as for your claim models aren't tuned?

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_dat ... 8-1-3.html

You can Google for yourself about how they are tuned, but its done for things like volcanoes that the models can't do. I understand the need for it, but without tuning parameters as the model plays forward, they can't match history.

I'm not sure what your point is on CFC's. Declining CFC's have caused cooling? Doesn't that support the hypothesis that rising CO2 is not driving warming, but it was excess CFC's? So you support my argument then?

DIREWOLF75 wrote:Well that might become interesting as the results coming in recently shows warming increasing, not flattening out.

I'm not sure where you are seeing that. All temperature records have shown no increase in aprox 15 years. Its not a secret or conspiracy. The IPCC acknowledges it. If you have a data source that shows increasing temps, lets see it.
It's not the penguins I hate, so much as the idea of penguins.
Image
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.” - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Fuzz
X-bit Penguin Hater
 
Posts: 7875
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:38 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Re: Climate Change

Postby Hammer_Time » Fri Dec 06, 2013 4:09 pm

Australia, USA and other countries have recorded their hottest summers ever on record in recent years, however they have also experienced colder winters, thus "balancing out" the overall average temp. So are we discussing localized extreme weather events, or just the "global average temp" here, there is a huge difference as you know...

I found a reason why the global average surface temp has "paused" for the past 15 years:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... ing-paused

Has Global Warming Paused?

Climate scientists know the answer is no, but have trouble communicating that


Energy & Sustainability :: Climatewire :: November 1, 2013
By Stephanie Paige Ogburn and ClimateWire

In a recent edition of NASA's "Ask a Climate Scientist" video series, scientist Joshua Willis stands in front of a black screen, makes a few goofy faces and gives a brief answer to what has become a common question about climate science.

"A lot of people ask me: 'Has there been a pause in global warming because, like, temperatures aren't increasing as fast as they were a decade ago?'" Willis says.

"And I always say, you know, paws are for kittens and puppies, because global warming is definitely still increasing," Willis continues, smiling at his wordplay, as graphics of cute baby animals fill the screen.

It's true that Willis and nearly every other climate scientist dismiss the idea that global warming has paused. Yet the fact remains that average surface temperatures worldwide have not increased since around the turn of the century.

To the casual observer, the lack of warming at the Earth's surface, contrasted to climate scientists' insistence that the planet is still warming, might seem like a conundrum.

As scientists like Willis explain, though, most of the extra heat trapped by greenhouse gases does not warm the Earth's surface anyway.


Why do rising sea levels ignore the pause?

"Over 90 percent of the heat that we trap ... is warming the oceans," Willis said.

So as a measure of global warming, surface temperatures are not a good yardstick, because the atmosphere can only hold a small percentage of the heat that is trapped, he said.

Rather, the oceans should be the primary barometer of global climate change.

And they are certainly changing. Sea levels are going up "like gangbusters," Willis said.

The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change physical science draft report, released in late September, said it is a near certainty that rates of sea-level rise -- pushed up largely because warmer water expands -- have accelerated over the last two centuries.

The IPCC also reported it was very likely that rates of sea-level rise from 1993 to 2010 had almost doubled, from a 0.067-inch-per-year average rate for the 20th century to a 0.125-inch-per-year average rate.

To Willis and other scientists, this is a clear signal that global warming continues.

"Sea levels are still rising; the ice sheets are still melting; the oceans are still getting more acidic," Willis said. "All of that stuff is still going on just as it has, unabated."


If the heat continues to rise, where is it?
Even if they don't think global warming has paused, scientists are still interested in learning why the rate of surface warming over the last 10 to 15 years has been much slower than in the decades before, even as levels of greenhouse gases continue to increase.

If the Earth is still storing extra heat and that heat is not going into the atmosphere, it must be going somewhere else. Determining where the heat is going could lead to a better understanding of the Earth's climate system, they say.

One of the first researchers to address this question was Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

In 2011, Trenberth was a co-author on a paper published in Nature Climate Change that used models to show that pauses in surface temperature warming correspond to additional heat being stored deep in the ocean, below where most of our existing sensors typically measure.

Since then, Trenberth has published additional research (ClimateWire, April 8) showing that more than 30 percent of the warming in the oceans has occurred at depths below about 2,300 feet. He and his co-authors link this change to shifts in winds, especially in the Pacific Ocean, related to decadal weather patterns in the Pacific.

"We've found some of the missing energy in the deeper parts of the ocean, and that's the part that relates to the hiatus," he said. "What has happened in the last decade or so is more heat is going into the ocean."

A study published yesterday in the journal Science bolsters that idea. It uses fossil data to reconstruct past temperatures in the Pacific Ocean. That research shows that the middle depths of the ocean, between about 1,500 and 3,300 feet deep, have warmed 15 times faster in the past 60 years than at any time during the past 10,000 years.

Other research has also pointed to the Pacific as a storehouse for additional heat (Greenwire, Aug. 28).

This period of slow surface warming is not unique, Trenberth added. There have been times of lower surface temperatures in the past, like from 1977 to 1986 and from 1987 to 1996.

After each of those nearly decadelong spans without surface warming, temperatures rapidly jumped up again, continuing their inexorable upward trend, Trenberth said.

Volcanoes, aerosols, computer models and other mysteries
Benjamin Santer, a climate scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, sees research into the pause in surface warming as a sort of scientific mystery that helps researchers better understand how the Earth's climate works.

Santer thinks there are a few reasons for the surface warming slowdown, including natural climate variations, which include extra heat going into the ocean, which, as he pointed out, has continued to warm.

"There's this rich internal climate variability, so it's easily possible to get a short 10- or 15-year period with little or no [surface] warming, even with human-released greenhouse gases," Santer said.

He's also working to see whether factors outside of climate variability, such as small volcanic eruptions, air pollution or even errors in the measurements of atmospheric temperatures, may be playing a role.

Santer believes one of the reasons climate models may on average predict more surface warming than has actually occurred is that they are leaving out the cooling effects of small volcanic eruptions over the past decade, which reflect more heat out of the atmosphere.

They may also underrepresent cooling from aerosol pollutants from industrial activities.

"If model simulations leave out important cooling influences that have affected the real world over the hiatus period, then you are going to get the wrong answer," Santer said.

Potent ammunition for climate contrarians
Santer expressed frustration that scientists and others who are skeptical of global warming had used the pause in temperature increases as evidence to say climate change is not happening.

In fact, testimony by William Happer, a physicist at Princeton University who pointed out the pause in warming to members of Congress, spurred some of Santer's research into the topic.

Happer believes that carbon dioxide does have a warming effect on the atmosphere but that its effect has been wildly overestimated by climate models.

Happer first noted the slowdown in surface warming in 2005, he said.

After the 1998 El Niño, which had a warming effect, and a subsequent La Niña, which had a global cooling effect, "it never really started warming again," Happer said. "It just sort of settled down to a flat plateau which we are still in. ... And by now it's completely at odds with some of the models."

To Happer, the lesson of the slowdown in surface temperatures is that models greatly overestimate the role of CO2 in warming the atmosphere.

Richard Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and another prominent critic of climate models, said the recent slowdown in surface warming demonstrates how climate models fail to simulate natural variability.

"The longer [the pause] goes on, the more significant it becomes," Lindzen said. At some point, he continued, models will be so clearly wrong that the public will reject them.

Is 'pause' the right scientific description?
To Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University best known for the famed "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic warming in surface temperatures from 1,000 years ago to the present, even framing the slowdown in surface temperature increases as a "pause" can be misleading, because global warming has continued.

Mann agreed with other researchers that the oceans are likely taking up a certain amount of heat and that the recent small volcanic eruptions probably also have played a role in keeping surface warming at bay.

"The problem isn't that we cannot explain the temporary slowdown in warming -- the problem is that there are so many explanations for it, we're not yet sure what the true role is for each," he wrote in an email.

Mann also pointed out that surface temperatures, even if their rate of increase has slowed, still fall within the range of IPCC model projections.

Both Santer and Trenberth agreed that models could probably improve their representation of natural variability, solar cycles, and cooling factors like volcanic eruptions and aerosols.

But picking a period of a decade or so where one part of the Earth's climate system fails to warm and using it to discredit all of climate science is a fallacious argument, and one driven by those with an agenda to discredit climate scientists, the researchers say.

Especially when over longer periods of time, as Mann's hockey stick graph demonstrates, the warming signal is so clear.

"Cherry-picking isn't allowed. You can't look at one highly unusual 15-year period and say, 'This is my yardstick for measuring climate models,'" Santer said.


Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. http://www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500


Rising sea levels... better indicator of proof that global warming is still continuing...
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33553
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: Climate Change

Postby Fuzz » Fri Dec 06, 2013 7:56 pm

Sea level elevation readings are highly suspect. The record is far from accurate for numerous reasons. You can watch this minute physics video for an explanation why:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 65O3qA0-n4

There is also this, on exaggeration of sea level change:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/30/i ... ggeration/



As for all the heat going to the deep oceans, its also incredibly hard to say that with any certainty. Before the ARGO probes(2003) there is very little in the way for records fro deep ocean temperature. The records are incredibly sparse, even 50 years ago. I'm not sure any sort of trend can be deciphered from that. There is just far to little data.

The fact is, you don't hear about a lot of these things, because no news isn't really news. You here mass media pushing stories, because stories sell. If we can't panic about something, how are we going to be a captive audience? The Environmental movement has discovered this and is using it. Unfortunately it works against them, because they are failing to act on real problems and are going to be massively discredited by reality. I think that's what bothers me most. All credibility will be gone, and the common voting public will be tired of being lied to. Classic Boy who cried wolf syndrome.
It's not the penguins I hate, so much as the idea of penguins.
Image
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.” - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Fuzz
X-bit Penguin Hater
 
Posts: 7875
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:38 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Re: Climate Change

Postby Fuzz » Fri Dec 06, 2013 8:04 pm

"Cherry-picking isn't allowed. You can't look at one highly unusual 15-year period and say, 'This is my yardstick for measuring climate models,'" Santer said.[/b]


Its rather rich of Santer to say something like that after he says this:

Dr. Ben Santer where it was claimed that:
In order to separate human-caused global warming from the “noise” of purely natural climate fluctuations, temperature records must be at least 17 years long, according to climate scientists.


And now we are approaching that length of time with no warming he says that "cherry picking" 15 years doesn't indicate anything? So when it hits 17 will he admit it shows a trend? And its not just a "period" plucked from the middle of a dataset. Its the past 15 years, as he admits!

And since HT likes to point out how warm it is there, its still fall here, and -29 all week long. Cold enough for ya? Sure is for me.... :D I could use some serious global warming in my parts, someone send some my way!
It's not the penguins I hate, so much as the idea of penguins.
Image
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.” - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Fuzz
X-bit Penguin Hater
 
Posts: 7875
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:38 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Re: Climate Change

Postby Hammer_Time » Fri Dec 06, 2013 9:30 pm

okay, I see your point... however global warming does not mean warmer weather all the time as you know, it means more extreme weather.. so you are colder right now than usual, but how about the summers lately? Any heat records broken?

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-n ... -hot/68155

The summer of 2012 is in the running for one of the top three hottest summers in the past 60 years in the United States and southern Canada.
Steven A. Root, Certified Consulting Meteorologist and President and CEO of WeatherBank, Inc. has been examining hourly and daily temperatures in 59 hub cities dating back to Jan. 1, 1950
.
WeatherBank is an AccuWeather, Inc. long-range forecasting and data partner.
Root computes the cooling degree days (CDD) for each city, each day of the year. Cooling degree days are the number of degrees that a day's average temperature is above 65 degrees. The period from May 15 to Sept. 15 is considered to be the air conditioning/cooling season for the U.S. and Canada.
Root is estimating this summer to finish up with 59,484 CDDs based on what has happened thus far and what is projected.
"The summer of 2012 is on pace to finish third hottest on the list of 62 summers since 1950, but is still in the running for number two or one on the list," Root said.
The hottest summer on Root's records was last year (2011) with 60,402 CDDs. The second hottest summer, according to Root was 1951 with 60,078 CDDs. Comparatively, the coolest summer was 1965 with 43,337 CDDs.
Root's approximate 60-year average is 51,923 CDDs. The commonly used National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) most recent 30-year average is 53,933 CDDs. In the past 10 years, the average CDDs is 56,134.
"This tells you that the summers are trending hotter in the most recent decades and years for the U.S. and southern Canada as a whole," Root said.

In the U.S. as a whole, seven out of the last 10 summers have been hotter than the 62-year average. This compared to the 1960s and 1970s, when seven out of 10 summers were cooler than the NOAA's recent 30-year average.

During the 1980s and 1990s, again in the U.S. as a whole, the number of summers were about a 50/50 split being warmer or cooler than the NOAA 30-year average.
It is important to note that during an average summer across the U.S. and southern Canada, one part can be and often is significantly warmer or cooler than the local average.
Last summer, heat got a later start, compared to this summer. Root expects the period through Sept. 15 to fall a bit behind last year's pace and it is for that reason that this summer will probably fall a bit short of last year in terms of total CDDs.
"It will still be close and another big, broad surge of extreme heat can push the summer over the top in terms of CDDs," Root said.

Image

How Does Root Estimate the Reminder of the Summer?
First, all available computer models in the public and private sector are examined.
Next, all past years are examined and the top candidates for similar-looking weather and temperature patterns to this summer are pulled and weighted in. These are known as analog years.
Finally, the analog years are adjusted by shifting the start of the season forward and backward to account for potential late-starting or early-starting summer patterns.
In the 15 years Root has been making seasonal weather projections, he has run into some problems in the most recent years, due to more extremes in temperature (hot and cold) than during the prior years.
"In the recent five years, I have had to manually override the data due to the high number and magnitude of temperature extremes, compared to prior decades," Root said.

Root chose 1950 as the starting point since this is when a high number of the reporting stations throughout the U.S. and southern Canada began recording hourly temperature data.
"Even with this starting point we had to create a few virtual weather stations for the first few years, based on knowledge of weather in the missing locations, relative to surrounding actual stations," Root said.
AccuWeather Enterprise Solutions (AES) provides ag-focused forecasts from expert agricultural meteorologists that help manage risk, highlight opportunity and increase profitability.
AES works directly with your company to provide the long-range predictions that impact yields including seasonal, planting, harvesting and drought forecasts. It also provides timely warnings for severe weather, including hail, frost, thunderstorms, extreme heat and cold and more for growing regions around the world.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-01/a ... rd/4547746

Australia breaks hottest summer record

By Tim Jeanes and Lexi Metherell
Updated Fri 1 Mar 2013

The Bureau of Meteorology has confirmed that Australia has just experienced its hottest summer on record.

The bureau says the previous hottest summer - measured by average day and night figures from across the nation - was in 1997-98.

Climate monitoring manager Dr Karl Braganza says a particularly hot spell in January has helped towards the new record.

"That's certainly contributed to it being the hottest summer on record, but it has been hot in December and February as well," he said.

"Both of those months right around Australia have been warmer than average and it's extending a real six-month period, so the last six months have been the hottest on record from September to February."

Overall, Australia's average summer temperature came in at 28.6 degrees Celsius.

Fourteen of the weather bureau's 112 long-term climate stations recorded their hottest days on record, including one in Sydney, where the temperature hit 46 degrees in the middle of January.

"Certainly there's a background trend of warming temperatures and there's also a trend in our rate of setting records particularly in the last decade," Dr Braganza said.

"Now we're setting daytime and night-time records around Australia at a very (much) more frequent rate than we were in the past and they outnumber cold records by five to one in some instances."

And he says this summer is likely to be a taste of what is to come in future decades.

"By about mid-century, so in about 40 years, you're actually talking about conditions like this becoming normal," he said.

"It depends on what emissions trajectory we go down, but on those mid to high scenarios, then this certainly would be a taste of things to come."

Extreme heatwave

The last six months have been the hottest on record from September to February.


"Most hot summers it's very hot in the east and cool in the west, or it's hot in the south but cooler than normal in the north, but this year it's been hotter than normal almost everywhere," he said.

"We had an extreme heatwave through the first half of January which affected much of the country and that was the peak of the summer heat.

"But even if you take out that first half of January, it was still a summer which was very much warmer than normal."

The flood disasters may give the impression that it has been not only a hot, but a wet summer, but the bureau says average national summer rainfall was at a nine-year low.

"If you look at the areas that have had above average rainfall, you are really only looking at two areas," Dr Trewin said.

"One is the east coast and adjacent ranges, from probably about Mackay southwards in Queensland and most of coastal New South Wales, and also the western half of WA. So those two regions had a wet summer but almost everywhere else it was a dry summer."

No El Nino

If we look at previous very hot summers in Australia before this year, six of the eight hottest summers on record had occurred during El Nino years.


Climatologist Blair Trewin

Normally, a hot summer like the one just gone would be accompanied by hotter than normal temperatures in the central and eastern Pacific Ocean - an El Nino summer, in other words.

But Dr Trewin says this year ocean temperatures were average.

"That's quite unusual for a summer like this," he said.

"If we look at previous very hot summers in Australia before this year, six of the eight hottest summers on record had occurred during El Nino years.

"So the fact that we've got such a hot summer without having an El Nino makes it in some ways even more exceptional."

Penny Whetton, a senior climate research scientist with the CSIRO, says the fact that it was not an El Nino year is significant.

"It just underlines that it's much easier, so to speak, for the climate to give us a hot year than what it used to be in the past," she said.

"It really just shows that the potential for us to get really warm conditions has increased.

"The effect of that is that we can get very warm years now without one of the factors that can contribute to warmth being in place, and that is El Nino conditions. I think that is actually quite significant. "


Australia just had its hottest summer on record, and that with NO El Nino conditions... which is bizarre...and concerning!
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33553
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: Climate Change

Postby Sauron_Daz » Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:03 am

Last two summer here were not the hottest.. they were quite short actually and a bit wetter then usual.
We never think of us as being one of Them. We are always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
User avatar
Sauron_Daz
Evil OverLord Mod
 
Posts: 34464
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: Climate Change

Postby Sauron_Daz » Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:10 am

Hammer_Time wrote:okay, I see your point... however global warming does not mean warmer weather all the time as you know, it means more extreme weather..

Ot larger differences. Around the equator is can be a lot hotter, moderate area's could see a fall in average temperature. On average the temperature is higher.
We never think of us as being one of Them. We are always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
User avatar
Sauron_Daz
Evil OverLord Mod
 
Posts: 34464
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: Climate Change

Postby Fuzz » Sat Dec 07, 2013 7:16 am

I'm not arguing baseline temp is not higher now, meaning we are going to have lots of records or near records in the past 15 years. But it hasn't been increasing in that time. You have to look much further back to see the temperature trend since that last glacial, and it has been a rising trend, as would be expected. Its not like were are hotter than we have ever been, its just we are hotter than we were in the recent past.

Attributing it to CO2 just doesn't make a lot of sense when you look at all of the facts.
It's not the penguins I hate, so much as the idea of penguins.
Image
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.” - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Fuzz
X-bit Penguin Hater
 
Posts: 7875
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:38 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Re: Climate Change

Postby Hammer_Time » Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:55 pm

cow farts then? :mrgreen:
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33553
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: Climate Change

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Sat Dec 07, 2013 3:52 pm

So Dire, as for your claim models aren't tuned?

What claim?

I'm not sure what your point is on CFC's. Declining CFC's have caused cooling? Doesn't that support the hypothesis that rising CO2 is not driving warming, but it was excess CFC's? So you support my argument then?

:roll:
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/vetenskap/krig ... -klimatet/
In short, the Montreal treaty of 1989 cut down on CFCs, and has recently been found to be both faster acting and more powerful as greenhouse gasses than earlier known.

Which also help to result in this:
http://www.dn.se/nyheter/vetenskap/ozon ... n-minskar/
"Ozone hole over south pole lessening."
Interesting part is that raising air temperature in the Antarctic is the main reason for this early reduction in the size of the hole.

Your claim that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas is still ridiculous. It is a KNOWN greenhouse gas, the more you argue otherwise the sillier you make yourself seem. There is simply zero doubt on this, the question is exactly how large the effect is in a natural environment.

I'm not sure where you are seeing that. All temperature records have shown no increase in aprox 15 years. Its not a secret or conspiracy. The IPCC acknowledges it. If you have a data source that shows increasing temps, lets see it.

HT kindly pointed out where your flaws come from. You only look at the measurements of surface temperature. When ocean temperature and above surface temperature appears to be the most affected.

And again you ignore the fact that if there was zero warming, then due to the solar cycles, we SHOULD have a VERY noticeable cooling by now.

As for all the heat going to the deep oceans, its also incredibly hard to say that with any certainty. Before the ARGO probes(2003) there is very little in the way for records fro deep ocean temperature. The records are incredibly sparse, even 50 years ago. I'm not sure any sort of trend can be deciphered from that. There is just far to little data.

The first regular measuring of ocean temperatures started in the 19th century, by the 1950s and -60s it started to become a more and more widespread thing because it aided weather predictions.

ARGO wasn´t the first, it was the first that was massively widespread and more precise.
There´s hoards of data from the 70s and ahead, as that was when the a new generation of sensor floats went into mass production.

And now we are approaching that length of time with no warming he says that "cherry picking" 15 years doesn't indicate anything? So when it hits 17 will he admit it shows a trend? And its not just a "period" plucked from the middle of a dataset. Its the past 15 years, as he admits!

Ho Ho Ho... :roll:

You do know the meaning of the words "at least"? And at least one reason for that length of time is due to the solar 11 year cycle. 15 is just one and a third cycle, 17 with optimal timing works, but you need 22 years to eliminate both the short solar cycle and some other stuff.
And then you still may have to compensate for the >4 longer solar/astronomical cycles(earth wobble, earth orbit, solar output among other things).



The annoying thing here is that it´s just a few months since i already had your arguments on another forum, i´m rather sick and tired of them.

You´re cherrypicking like you owned all cherry trees on earth.
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 15121
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Re: Climate Change

Postby Fuzz » Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:28 pm

DIREWOLF75 wrote:
So Dire, as for your claim models aren't tuned?

What claim?

From the other thread...
DIREWOLF75 wrote:Really... Interesting claim that is. Only place i see that from is pretty much conspiracy theorists and shills.

I'm not sure what your point is on CFC's. Declining CFC's have caused cooling? Doesn't that support the hypothesis that rising CO2 is not driving warming, but it was excess CFC's? So you support my argument then?


Your claim that CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas is still ridiculous. It is a KNOWN greenhouse gas, the more you argue otherwise the sillier you make yourself seem. There is simply zero doubt on this, the question is exactly how large the effect is in a natural environment.


I've never claimed it wasn't, so stop putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that its present concentrations and increases are insubstantial and not enough to have any affect on our climate.
HT kindly pointed out where your flaws come from. You only look at the measurements of surface temperature. When ocean temperature and above surface temperature appears to be the most affected.

Image

This shows the depth and coverage of the oceans. Look closely, and you will see that there is less than 20% coverage below 700m before 1990. Hell, even the shallow ocean has very poor coverage at that time. Keep in mind, % coverage is 1°lattitude-longitude grid cell. That's one measurement. Very sparse.
And again you ignore the fact that if there was zero warming, then due to the solar cycles, we SHOULD have a VERY noticeable cooling by now.

I'm not ignoring anything Dire. I'm looking at the evidence. I understand what you are saying, that the current solar cycle is offsetting the supposed warming caused by CO2. Is it possible? Sure it is. Unfortunately the IPCC doesn't think so, because if they did, they'd be trumpeting from the rooftops that that is why we have a pause. The fact is, they really have no idea, and they've said as much.

My theory is that we have been on a long march from the last glacial with ups and downs mostly caused by solar cycles and volcanoes(and man made CFC's, if you really want to keep pushing that point). CO2 has virtually nothing to do with it because it is far to small a percentage of gas in the atmosphere and its ability to act as a strong enough greenhouse gas in present concentrations just isn't there. The IPCC has no idea what the global climate sensitivity even is! They've said as much in there Fifth report. That means they don't have a clue how the climate will react to various forcings.


And now we are approaching that length of time with no warming he says that "cherry picking" 15 years doesn't indicate anything? So when it hits 17 will he admit it shows a trend? And its not just a "period" plucked from the middle of a dataset. Its the past 15 years, as he admits!

Ho Ho Ho... :roll:

You do know the meaning of the words "at least"? And at least one reason for that length of time is due to the solar 11 year cycle. 15 is just one and a third cycle, 17 with optimal timing works, but you need 22 years to eliminate both the short solar cycle and some other stuff.
And then you still may have to compensate for the >4 longer solar/astronomical cycles(earth wobble, earth orbit, solar output among other things).
[/quote]
Oh goody. More eye rolling form Dire on a subject he thinks he knows everything about. Instead of pretending you have a clue what you are talking about on everything, why don't you take some time to look into some of the things I talk about and make an educated comment on it. The 17 year comment was made for a reason, your extensions don't have any purpose, unless you can point to a valid source for it.

The annoying thing here is that it´s just a few months since i already had your arguments on another forum, i´m rather sick and tired of them.

You´re cherrypicking like you owned all cherry trees on earth.

Aww, you had this conversation before? No one is forcing you to sit here and argue and make up points that you think I believe in just so you have stuff to throw back at me. I'm not cherrypicknig anything. I'm looking at an obvious trend for the past 15 years and discussing it. The climate community hasn't figured out in any conclusive way why there has been a pause when most of them thought temperatures have been increasing, so i don't expect you to have the answer either. Open your mind a little and you may learn something. Its OK to not have an immediate answer and to ponder alternatives. You seam to have a MAJOR problem with that in every discussion anyone ever has with you.
It's not the penguins I hate, so much as the idea of penguins.
Image
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.” - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Fuzz
X-bit Penguin Hater
 
Posts: 7875
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:38 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Re: Climate Change

Postby Hammer_Time » Sat Dec 07, 2013 7:24 pm

I don't think the problem is cow farts anymore, I think it must be penguin farts warming up the antarctic! :wink: :mrgreen: :lol:

Image

Image

I was thinking polar bear farts but they are in decline right now so probably not:

http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/Ol2xumQftkM/hqdefault.jpg

Here is some sage advice to help save the environment!! :

Image

:twisted:
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33553
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: Climate Change

Postby Sauron_Daz » Sun Dec 08, 2013 2:43 am

Hammer_Time wrote:cow farts then? :mrgreen:

:lol:
We never think of us as being one of Them. We are always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
User avatar
Sauron_Daz
Evil OverLord Mod
 
Posts: 34464
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: Climate Change

Postby Sauron_Daz » Sun Dec 08, 2013 2:44 am

Image
We never think of us as being one of Them. We are always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.
User avatar
Sauron_Daz
Evil OverLord Mod
 
Posts: 34464
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm

Re: Climate Change

Postby Hammer_Time » Sun Dec 08, 2013 4:40 am

Exactly!! Damn those global-warming cows!!! :fist: :twisted: :lol: :lol:
The richest man is not he who has the most, but he who needs the least. No good deed goes unpunished...

Image
User avatar
Hammer_Time
Rantmeister Mod
 
Posts: 33553
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Kitchener-Waterloo, Ontario, Mordor

Re: Climate Change

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Sun Dec 08, 2013 6:54 am

From the other thread...

Sorry but that´s your very free and "extended" interpretation. I never said a word about that.

I've never claimed it wasn't, so stop putting words in my mouth. I'm saying that its present concentrations and increases are insubstantial and not enough to have any affect on our climate.

:roll:
Well see, you just did it again.

If it is a greenhouse gas, then existing at all HAS an effect on the climate.
And it IS a greenhouse gas, the effect that CO2 has have been tested reliably in closed environments. It´s a KNOWN data point that has been researched repeatedly.

It has also been unintentionally researched, for example with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2
Which was then later used for intentional research:
In 1995, Columbia University took management of the facility for research and as a campus until 2003. In 1996, they changed the virtually airtight, materially closed structure designed for closed system research, to a "flow-through" system, and halted closed system research. They manipulated carbon dioxide levels for global warming research, and injected desired amounts of carbon dioxide, venting as needed.

Make up your mind, either it is a greenhouse gas, in which case it affects global warming as long as it is present, or it isn´t. And it´s already proven beyond any shadow of doubt that it IS.

Again, i repeat, the question is how much effect it has out in the open system. To claim there is NO effect is just silly and in direct opposition to all evidence, both theoretical and experimental.

This shows the depth and coverage of the oceans. Look closely, and you will see that there is less than 20% coverage below 700m before 1990. Hell, even the shallow ocean has very poor coverage at that time. Keep in mind, % coverage is 1°lattitude-longitude grid cell. That's one measurement. Very sparse.


So, your basic argument is that if someone walks up to you and offers to sell you the Golden Gate bridge, you will buy it because "well i can´t be SURE i´m getting swindled because i don´t know enough...".

That´s an argument well worth being called Epic Fail.

Aww, you had this conversation before? No one is forcing you to sit here and argue and make up points that you think I believe in just so you have stuff to throw back at me.

No i spent about 20-25 hours checking the facts. Something i´m not going to repeat just because you have issues with elementary science(aka KNOWN facts).
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 15121
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Re: Climate Change

Postby Celt » Sun Dec 08, 2013 7:50 am

Frankly Dire, while I understand you not wanting to repeat yourself, perhaps you should provide a link to that other discussion, lest someone call "BS" on you?
You don't have to be a megalomaniac to moderate this forum . . . but it helps!
Image
1123.6536.5321 - More than a number, it's our home!
User avatar
Celt
SpamCrusher Mod
 
Posts: 9702
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: The Land of Concrete Cows

Re: Climate Change

Postby DIREWOLF75 » Sun Dec 08, 2013 9:34 am

Celt wrote:Frankly Dire, while I understand you not wanting to repeat yourself, perhaps you should provide a link to that other discussion, lest someone call "BS" on you?


I don´t mix my use of internet names. Have 5 or so, never give a hint to another in any place i use them (except DW75 and Direwolf are effectively interchangeable(in part thanks to there being at least 2 others using both nicknames)). And one of those names is never used without a proxy.

A policy i most certainly will not change just because of this, call it whatever you want.
And if you think that´s paranoid, you should see how much further my friend goes.
This has been an objective and completely impartial message from the propaganda bureau of DIREWOLF75. Thank you for reading. Have a nice day.
Image
User avatar
DIREWOLF75
X-bit Goon
 
Posts: 15121
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 4:00 pm
Location: Isthmus of Baldur (modernly known as Bollnäs), Sweden

Re: Climate Change

Postby Fuzz » Sun Dec 08, 2013 10:11 am

Celt wrote:Frankly Dire, while I understand you not wanting to repeat yourself, perhaps you should provide a link to that other discussion, lest someone call "BS" on you?


Now why would I want to see his posts on other forums where he would berate anyone putting forward a different view from his? I get to see enough of that here.
It's not the penguins I hate, so much as the idea of penguins.
Image
“I have noticed even people who claim everything is predestined, and that we can do nothing to change it, look before they cross the road.” - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Fuzz
X-bit Penguin Hater
 
Posts: 7875
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:38 am
Location: Calgary, Canada

Next

Return to The Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest