Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[aleCcowaN]

Read it again - that is NOAA data.

Do you confess to be the author of that graphic? If not, how do you know it is "NOAA data"? (Not answering would imply you DO know the data is either false or cherry-picked. But you may try a lame one-line answer)

 

[macdoc]

Ouch - this is early...

Quote:

Animals are already dissolving in Southern Ocean

* 18:00 25 November 2012 by Michael Marshall
* For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide

In a small patch of the Southern Ocean, the shells of sea snails are dissolving. The finding is the first evidence that marine life is already suffering as a result of man-made ocean acidification.

"This is actually happening now," says Geraint Tarling of the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, UK. He and colleagues captured free-swimming sea snails called pteropods from the Southern Ocean in early 2008 and found under an electron microscope that the outer layers of their hard shells bore signs of unusual corrosion.

As well as warming the planet, the carbon dioxide we emit is changing the chemistry of the ocean. CO2 dissolves in water to form carbonic acid, making the water less alkaline. The pH is currently dropping at about 0.1 per century, faster than any time in the last 300 million years.
more

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22531-animals-are-already-dissolving-in-southern-ocean.html

anyone care to calculate how much limestone we need

 

[spin0]

AGU fall meeting December 3-7 has a huge amount of lectures and sessions about climate change and it's effects with latest results. You can search the abstracts here: 2012 Fall Meeting scientific program

Some of the lectures and sessions will be webcasted live. They are on this list: Video On-Demand Lectures and Sessions

And some of the sessions have related press conferences where experts discuss their findings ("Climate Change and Civilizations", "Superstorm Sandy, Black Swan Cyclones and the Economic Toll to Come", "What’s going on in the Arctic?" etc). Topics and press conferences are listed in media advisories, latest available here: Media Advisory 4

Press conferences are webcasted here: http://live.projectionnet.com/agupress/fm2012.aspx
And related documents will be posted here: http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2012/media-center/virtual-press-room/

(I don't know if registration is necessary.)

Plus lotsa lotsa other interesting cutting-edge research of various subjects. Man, I just love AGU fall meeting.

 

[Lennart Hyland]

Exellent spin0! I'm looking forward to those webcasted lectures

 

[lomiller]

Read it again - that is NOAA data.

I inked the NOAA data and it looks nothing like what you posted and directly contradicted your claims. In the NOAA data the trend in ocean heat content is incontrovertible, here it is again since you apparently didn’t look the first time.

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

 

[CapelDodger]

Read it again - that is NOAA data.

It's actually a picture which somebody says is based on NOAA data. Someone whom you apparently trust implicitly. Data actually sourced from NOAA is different.

Even if that actually does represent ARGO data, the data itself (as has been pointed out already) looks to be very suspect, not to say incredible. This is not altogether surprising since ARGO is a very new system which is not firmly bedded-in yet. This is one reason why deniers like it so much and will cool on it as it does get more dependable. We saw that happen to satellites : once declared the Gold Standard measurement system because they appeared to show no warming they soon lost their glitter when systematic errors were identified and allowed for.

It is, of course, the fate of AGW denial to constantly be in retreat as reality insists on intruding.

 

[aleCcowaN]

Even if that actually does represent ARGO data, the data itself (as has been pointed out already) looks to be very suspect, not to say incredible. This is not altogether surprising since ARGO is a very new system which is not firmly bedded-in yet. This is one reason why deniers like it so much and will cool on it as it does get more dependable.

The coverage of the 700-2000m layers is still incomplete. What denialists fail to understand is that by making their own version of the escalator but this time regarding to ocean heat content they are not pointing the non-existence of global warming but they are accepting that deep layers of the ocean can't come fast enough to the aid of us creatures living in the surface. They also fail to see -and they are interested in making other people to fail to see- that by adding their own sea level escalator to the picture they only confirm that the deep ocean layers are indeed storing heat (one exercise I used asked to move heat to different layers in order to shrink the ocean one centimetre).

 

[Pixel42]

Guys, it's just eight years of data. It doesn't matter if it's accurate, cherry picked, or just made up, eight years is never going to be long enough to reliably identify a statistically significant underlying trend.

The graph it was posted in response to covered the last 50 years, and clearly shows the underlying trend. The fact that all the deniers can do in response to that is try this pathetic trick of reducing the interval (especially when they have to reduce it to as little as eight years) tells you all you need to know about their level of desperation.

 

[aleCcowaN]

That's what we were implying. It was balrog666 who had to arrive to that conclusion or entangle himself trying to justify his data and assertion.

By now, it all looks like yet another case of lame «but I [believe to] have debunked "you" using "your" own data» with a """"debunker"""" thinking «I almost know nothing but look how easy I made these morons fall; the people who really know the subject like Curry and McIntyre, you can't imagine how right they are» (...and let the counterfeit banknote to be used in another round of shopping, I'd add), which is the typical denialist extension of epistemological hedonism beyond the science itself and back to the psychological realm supporting it.

Dealing with the balrog666s of the world with "it's just eight years of data" and an improvised primer about normals, natural variation -or "noise" like balrog666 liked to call it, mixing up the tool and what the tool achieves- and background trends, is just like admonishing someone for not using a hard hat in a construction site and telling him about the risks and the record of accidents just to hear the moron answering "that is not going to happen to me; I have never seen a brick or a hammer falling, least of all on the head of someone"

 

[macdoc]

Guys, it's just eight years of data. It doesn't matter if it's accurate, cherry picked, or just made up, eight years is never going to be long enough to reliably identify a statistically significant underlying trend.

and exposing that protects the casual reader who might thing Bal has some sort cred.

 

[CapelDodger]

The graph it was posted in response to covered the last 50 years, and clearly shows the underlying trend. The fact that all the deniers can do in response to that is try this pathetic trick of reducing the interval (especially when they have to reduce it to as little as eight years) tells you all you need to know about their level of desperation.

Couldn't agree more. And that's the minority who feel they ought to have some data to go on, not the majority who think it's all about a few (almost exclusively North American) personalities and Agenda 21.

 

[CapelDodger]

and exposing that protects the casual reader who might thing Bal has some sort cred.

It's a thankless task but I agree it needs to be done.

 

[aleCcowaN]

A good summary

http://www.weather.com/weather/videos/news-41/top-stories-169/hurricane-season-by-the-numbers-32446

 

[bobwtfomg]

stabalisation at 2 degrees C virtually impossible, 4 degrees C very likely by 2050-70

Talk by Professor Kevin Anderson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInrvSjW90U&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[CapelDodger]

I think History will mark 2012 as the year that the heart went out of AGW denial. Even the Heatland Institute is throwing what's left of itself directly against the target - renewables. There's no percentage left in being associated with AGW denial, which is to invite ridicule. This assault will all be on economic and Constitutional grounds, which can be dragged on forever.

Suddenly, from just after the US Elections, the prospect of a return to global prominence of US oil production (and, implicitly, the global influence the US had in those days) appears before us. A fracked future, guaranteed not to throw up any problems, and not a word about AGW. Not denying, ignoring.

A newcomer might be surprised to hear that this thread once had to be Moderated. We've seen some changes since I've been posting here . And it smells like ... Victory.

 

[macdoc]

a pyrrhic one ....that last video is just plain disheartening.
I knew everyone on the science end was being conservative in the what ifs...

Now the what is.......is a horror show unfolding far more rapidly than I would ever have thought

 

[CapelDodger]

A good summary

I do like the comment "the difficulty was in believing the models", or words to that effect.

The chance occurrence of Sandy at the end of several years of stuff happening in the US has doomed denial. Bad luck for them, good perhaps for others. Throw-away talk about the benefits of CO₂-fertilisation and longer growing seasons don't bear much weight against the very evident damage done on the down-side, in cornfields and in modern cities, and in whatever New Jersey is.

If anywhere, New York is where cold reason will dictate their path from here.

 

[macdoc]

Talk is Sandy more expensive than Katrina.

I wonder when the lawsuits will begin over C02 emissions the way they occurred with S02.

ack just found this

THU NOV 29, 2012 AT 02:26 PM PST
Jump in Sea Level Slams U.S. East Coast
byFishOutofWaterFollowforClimate Change SOS

PERMALINK 61 COMMENTS / 61 NEW
Hurricane Sandy and a series of noreasters have combined with an apparently unprecedented one year jump in sea level to cause a wave of destruction on the U.S. east coast. The one year change from fall 2011 to fall 2012 is about 32mm which absolutely dwarfs the computed trend of 1.7 mm/year since 1992. The approximately 32mm jump is the largest in the satellite altimetry record which began in 1992. 32mm is 1 1/4 inches, not a huge absolute rise, but an unprecedented rise in just one year. These data have not yet been verified and published, they are "live" internet data from NOAA,

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/29/1165705/-Jump-in-Sea-Level-Slams-U-S-East-Coast

waiting on verification

 

[CapelDodger]

a pyrrhic one ....that last video is just plain disheartening.
I knew everyone on the science end was being conservative in the what ifs...

Not Pyrrhic since we've really taken no casualties, there's no moderation, and yet the battlefield is ours. If said battlefield is this subject on this splendid Forum. Ten years ago it was mayhem.

Now the what is.......is a horror show unfolding far more rapidly than I would ever have thought

My expectations of the physical impacts in the Arctic have definitely been exceeded, but the absence of progress in addressing the big issue was well within my prediction of 0% +/- bugger-all.

 

[macdoc]

I was being cute - the casualties are the consequences.

I was informed by a certain NASA acquaintance familiar with the field not to take that Kevin Anderson piece too seriously - he suggested this instead.

http://www.livescience.com/24999-emissions-gap-global-warming.html