Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Pixel42]

NOAA's anomaly map for December is striking.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Thanks very nice post! So one of the reason why the deniers keep on claiming the pause or hiatus, is because they look at graphs like the one I post above? That shows the monthly average.

Mainly because they select the time period that suggest what they are willing to see, besides that kind of graphic being, yes, a little misleading. Why?

And for the average value of your graph...oh dear I'm bad at this..0.8 maybe?

You confirm my average of replies which is around 0.79. Well the average is ....(drums) ..... 0.67!!!!

The reason is a defect of graphics showing lines. The only valid representation are the points -omitted here to maximize the defect- but in my figure the up and down lines on the left "colour" a lot of the graphic and pull the "centre of visual mass", so to speak, upwards, hence the average perceived is wrong about 8% of the total figure height, what is a lot.

In the case of the famous hiatus, take this graphic I plotted this morning for our posts:



The figures starts on September 1997 which is the time period favouring the most the denialist case -including a number earlier values makes the trendline quickly a warming one-. On the left we have the peak of February 1998. The peak in the middle of the second worst Niño of the century, which has not being surpassed ever after -like the record heat in Buenos Aires, in 1994, never surpassed so far, and thousands of other records never surpassed until now, as one expects a record to be-. Well, it's not only a peak but a period of quick warming and cooling so there is a lot of ups and downs -you can see lines overlapping- which gives the figure a lot of weight on the left. That fosters the illusion of a declining trend though the real trend line is already drawn there in red -equation on the top- showing an almost constant -no trend- situation.

This is not completely perceived because the values on the centre and on the right are also a bit zigzagetty, but if you take moving averages of 3 or 6 months, something many denialist blogposts do, you get a curve plenty of ups and downs on the left and softened on the right. If you cut the series in 2011 or early 2012, you get a "clear" trend to cooling, no matter the equation gives a very small negative trend -and other statistical values I'm holding while our usual denialists reply-. And that is the typical figure you may find searching "cooling trend" in Google images.

In the end, don't forget denialist see what they want to see, like any other epistemological hedonists in any area of knowledge, including some "warmers", though, fortunately, not all the time.

 

[Megalodon]

Or am I wrong? But then if this pause really tells us anything, proves something etc? I have no idéa. Since 15 years doesnt really mean anything and as proven in this thread, some models have been expecting it.

I think you didn't get my graph. What it shows is that, if in 1995 you would forecast the evolution of the planet's temperature based on an extrapolation of the temperature rise until then, you would end up with exactly the same linear regression that we can observe today, with all the data.

What this tell us is that the "pause" doesn't exist, and is actually an artifact of the until then unseen temperatures of 1998.

The GISS graph you inked to shows the same: an underlying trend with the normal year-to-year variation. The only reason it looks like a plateau is because 1998 was so warm, so soon.

EDIT: Also, I live in the middle of Sweden and we have a got a fullblown winter now over here. Just as it should be. But for november and december it was just depressing

Tell me about it. Here in north Germany we hardly hit the negatives this Winter, and the Fall was extremely warm. No snow of note, but we have hopes for February. Been saving on heating, though...

 

[Megalodon]

Just released


more
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-noaa-world-4th-hottest.html

some "pause"

Typical... I make the graphs and a couple of hours later they release the new data.

 

[Belz...]

Listen Champ....ya' blew it when ya' took a side instead of waiting to see what was really happening.

Er... first of all several predictions have been confirmed. Second, how long, exactly, should we wait, assuming AGW is true, before doing something about it ? Wouldn't you agree that, again assuming AGW as true, we should respond to the problem before it becomes irreversible and, potentially, results in millions of dead ?

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
Listen Champ....ya' blew it when ya' took a side instead of waiting to see what was really happening.

there are no "sides"....there is evidence. You have none for your contention. Your opinion is worth squat.

What is really happening according to the evidence.

It's getting warmer.
We're responsible.

 

[CapelDodger]

... The combination drops the global temp 3 degrees in a year and then heads down as a major algae bloom in the Pacific from the constant dust continues and the cooler ocean absorbs more C02 starts a downward accelerated cooling.

Unlikely? maybe
Historical precedent?? Yep.

Indeed, and the catastrophe of 436CE did not trigger a glaciation, which is what Haig seems to be expecting. Three or four cold years and a few civilisations collapsing in fire and frenzy wouldn't count.

On a serious note, I think China and India have pretty much maxed out on pollution even if they keep trying to make it worse. It's as bad as it can get.

 

[Trakar]

Real ice ages had cosmic causes, and there were decades or centuries worth of warning. We're not in any danger of that.

The Little Ice Age and other similar shifts amount to centuries-long fluctuations in the output of a star and there was little if any warning.

There is a paradigm problem here. If our sun actually were some sort of a 4B year old thermonuclear furnace there would be no reason to think it would heat up and cool off periodically, but we know that it does.

Best analysis so far is that stars are plasma physics phenomena which behave like lightning rods as focal points of cosmic discharge and that, as they pass through regions of space with lesser or greater electrical potential difference from themselves, they heat up or cool off.

http://electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

Sorry all I was trying to keep from posting until I caught up from last week,...but I was unsuccessful. Someone please tell me that Icebear didn't just get away with dropping an electric universe woo-burger as a reference in the discussion of global warming!!

 

[Reality Check]

Sorry all I was trying to keep from posting until I caught up from last week,...but I was unsuccessful. Someone please tell me that Icebear didn't just get away with dropping an electric universe woo-burger as a reference in the discussion of global warming!!

A quick look indicates that everyone ignored the obvious electric sun woo. I ignored the entire post because of that and the persistent ignorance about the Sun keeping constant or even cooling a little over the last 35 years while temperatures increase.

 

[macdoc]

Capel I'm mostly tongue in cheek but do recall that feedback vis a vie C02 is self reinforcing and we were already tipping downward on the orbital cooling at a slow pace.

Onset of glaciation is poorly understood afaik and it also is self reinforcing. So in my view, not impossible, very unlikely.

I sort of wanted to use the littel tale to point out CO2's dual role.

It's forcing now but usually is feedback and if we force the climate cooler....which we have the ability to do as do volcanoes....then at some point glaciation must start. I'd not be standing by tho

I concur China is curbing SO2 but India is still emitting heavily and increasing.

 

[Trakar]

While remaining a tad skeptical about both sides of the equation, we need to be concerned about rising CO2 levels which mankind is very likely involved in. What remains to be seen is the consequences beyond ice is melting and the sea will rise X amount.

We are at the beginning of understanding so caution is necessary without alarm.

Shutting down fossil fuel use is nonsensical, problematic and counter productive though. We need that for numerous reasons. We just need to channel the resources from increased production into presently viable alternative energy production which should be fusion based. If we throw enough money at that as we waste trying to provide a long term solution to fossil fuels we could be rid of the majority of fossil fuel use in 100 years or less.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't seek a balanced approach in the interim in reducing greenhouse gases including more funding into basic climate research. That science will pay off in spades.

You seek a false balance that does not comport well with available evidences and the studied analyses of these evidences by people who have devoted their lives to developing their expertise in understanding these phenomena and evidences.

Wrong, Arnold Martin: the obvious climate science has been stated on this forum, that when we discuss an unusual cold weather event it cannot be attributed to climate change.

This is a result of the simple fact that climate change causes changes in the frequency of extreme weather events over a period of time. Thus we can never say that a given event is because of climate change. What we can say is that if the frequency of weather events changes then we can attribute that to climate change.

sorry, no real comment, but that was worthy of repeating!

Belz

Yup mine too plus nuclear - we cleared coal out this year. Course r-j is mighty afeared of nuclear.....it might come down the power lines and irradiate him..

My local grid is hydro, most of my personal power is photovoltaic and a few small wind turbines. I do have grid back-up and a biodiesel generator that I fire up a few times a year when we get draw out winter storms that knock the production of the panels way down and often (coincidentally) tend to play havoc with the overhead powerlines that feed our part of the county. Most of our biodiesel currently comes from soybean feedstocks, definitely not ideal, but its clean and good grade, we generally have to blend this with some ethanol to lower the temp at which it starts waxing up, but that really hasn't been a big problem around here, its more the issues of snow and ice building up on the panels in weather where it is difficult to get out and clear them off.

Yes. We're typing on our computers, and using fossil fuels because this is the time and the society that we were born into.

The point isn't to don sackcloth and wander into the wilderness looking to live like an aesthetic. We're a part of this society and we're just trying to get our fellow countrymen and leaders to admit there's a problem so we can begin to work on solutions.

And that's the shame of it. The really interesting discussions will be centered around how we decide to face it, what our options are and how significantly we're willing to change ourselves in order to mitigate the effects of our lifestyles.

Yet here we are, still decades later in the same stupid discussions just trying to convince people that the problem is real and that something needs to be done.

Another post deserving a repeat!

Well, ENSO3.4 was -0.7 by the week ending on January 14th. Anyway it's bouncing back. I expect a Niño to begin by Southern Spring. Let's see what last quarter IV has to say about ocean heat content.

Southern hemisphere Spring? So next Fall up here,...sounds about right, Niño, they seem to start in NH falls (isn't that how they got the name? because of proximity to Christmas?)

I mean, I took a global temperature series (HadCRUT3) ending on November 2013, I selected the beginning in a denialist fashion to favour the denialist advocacy the most -from September 1997 on- and it gave a trend for "cooling" of about 0.0025 °C per century...

[HadCRUT3] ignores most high lat. temp. changes, which is where much of the change has focused over the last decade. Makes sense that if they could dump most of the inconvenient data and cherry pick the range, they should have been able to find some trend they liked, I'm just surprised that with as much engineering as they apparently went through, that this was the best example of what they were looking for that they could find.

A quick look indicates that everyone ignored the obvious electric sun woo. I ignored the entire post because of that and the persistent ignorance about the Sun keeping constant or even cooling a little over the last 35 years while temperatures increase.

LOL, I was amazed,...with righteous indignance!!

Phew,...I survived the NFC championship game, and almost survived the ensuing celebrations,...well, some of them, I think many of them are ongoing, Seattle's a fun place to be when the Seahawks host and win games like these. But now that I've finished these last few pages,...I need a shower, see y'all later.

 

[macdoc]

okay - one of my new ice age conditions met sort of Global dimming V2.

Air Pollution from Asia Affecting World's Weather

Jan. 21, 2014 — Extreme air pollution in Asia is affecting the world's weather and climate patterns, according to a study by Texas A&M University and NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory researchers.
Yuan Wang, a former doctoral student at Texas A&M, along with Texas A&M atmospheric sciences professors Renyi Zhang and R. Saravanan, have had their findings published in the current issue of Nature Communications.

Using climate models and data collected about aerosols and meteorology over the past 30 years, the researchers found that air pollution over Asia -- much of it coming from China -- is impacting global air circulations.

"The models clearly show that pollution originating from Asia has an impact on the upper atmosphere and it appears to make such storms or cyclones even stronger," Zhang explains.

"This pollution affects cloud formations, precipitation, storm intensity and other factors and eventually impacts climate. Most likely, pollution from Asia can have important consequences on the weather pattern here over North America."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140121130034.htm

anyone got a big enough volcano or two????

 

[Trakar]

okay - one of my new ice age conditions met sort of Global dimming V2.



http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140121130034.htm

anyone got a big enough volcano or two????

And the Climate skirmishes begin!

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

there are no "sides"....

Says the person who introduces tribal signifiers to the discussion.

there is evidence. You have none for your contention. Your opinion is worth squat.

Try for civility.

What is really happening according to the evidence.

It's getting warmer.
We're responsible.

a) What is "it"?
b) "Responsibility" is an inference, not an observation ("evidence").

 

[DC]

Says the person who introduces tribal signifiers to the discussion. Try for civility.a) What is "it"?
b) "Responsibility" is an inference, not an observation ("evidence").

try science.

it is the planet we are living on.

and responsibiity is clear from the evidence. we know what causes the warming for a fact, we know who is causing this inrease in CO2 for a fact.

the evidence for this had been posted over and over again.

 

[Corsair 115]

the evidence for this had been posted over and over again.

But it's not real evidence! It's all part of the vast worldwide socialist conspiracy to destroy the American way of life! A conspiracy that has been running for over sixteen years!

 

[DC]

But it's not real evidence! It's all part of the vast worldwide socialist conspiracy to destroy the American way of life! A conspiracy that has been running for over sixteen years!

yeah it all started with those communist Arrhenius and Callendar.

 

[macdoc]

<SNIP>

Edited by Locknar: 

SNIPed, breach of rule 12; please do not personalize the argument.

•••

Meanwhile "it" is getting warmer.

Arctic warmth unprecedented in 44,000 years, reveals ancient moss
19 hours ago

When the temperature rises on Baffin Island, in the Canadian high Arctic, ancient Polytrichum mosses, trapped beneath the ice for thousands of years, are exposed. Using radiocarbon dating, new research in Geophysical Research Letters has calculated the age of relic moss samples that have been exposed by modern Arctic warming. Since the moss samples would have been destroyed by erosion had they been previously exposed, the authors suggest that the temperatures in the Arctic are warmer than during any sustained period since the mosses were originally buried.
The authors collected 365 samples of recently exposed biological material from 110 different locations, cutting a 1000 kilometer long transect across Baffin Island. From their samples the authors obtained 145 viable measurements through radiocarbon dating. They found that most of their samples date from the past 5000 years, when a period of strong cooling overtook the Arctic. However, the authors also found older samples which were buried from 24,000 to 44,000 years ago.
The records suggest that in general, the eastern Canadian Arctic is warmer now than in any century in the past 5000 years, and in some places, modern temperatures are unprecedented in at least the past 44,000 years. The observations, the authors suggest, show that modern Arctic warming far exceeds the bounds of historical natural variability.

more
http://phys.org/news/2014-01-arctic-warmth-unprecedented-years-reveals.html

how science works....try it some time

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

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.

"Evidence" that they "will be"? You understand that you're talking about predictions, right? Those predictions hinge on assumptions that are the subject of this dispute (feedbacks, "forcing").

 

[DC]

"Evidence" that they "will be"? You understand that you're talking about predictions, right? Those predictions hinge on assumptions that are the subject of this dispute (feedbacks, "forcing").

what assumptions do you mean exactly? be precise here.

and what dispute? there is no dispute.