Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[bobwtfomg]

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.

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/the_surprising_role_of_co2_in_changes_on_the_african_savanna/2663/

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

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.

 

[Corsair 115]

ETA: Seconded on wot Geni said. That really is a very tired old meme.

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.

 

[Puppycow]

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

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.

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.

 

[Pixel42]

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.

 

[uke2se]

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.

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.

 

[lomiller]

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.

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.

 

[Reality Check]

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.

The primary point is that the total heat content of the Earth (ocean + land + atmosphere) has continued to increase, especially in the oceans.

 

[Fudbucker]

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

 

[CapelDodger]

[SNIP]

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed personal comments

That there has indeed been no "global warming" as such since the 1990s ...

There has been global warming since the 1990's.

... but it doesn't count (for all sorts of good reasons) ...

The warming does count, as evedenced by the way climate has changed.

... there is too climate change.

Indeed there is, caused by global warming.

So even though I got the bare facts sort of straight the first time ...

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.

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.

 

[CapelDodger]

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

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.

 

[Megalodon]

...there has indeed been no "global warming" as such since the 1990s...

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...

 

[Mikemcc]

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...

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.

 

[Megalodon]

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.

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.

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

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.

 

[Megalodon]

They always speak of the Arctic sea-ice in March and April - the recovery months.

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.

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.

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...

 

[AlBell]

...

the huge amount of freak weather events occurring

...

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

 

[lomiller]

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

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.

 

[bobwtfomg]

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

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.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/extreme-weather-global-warming-intermediate.htm

 

[Reality Check]

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, 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.