Slashdot Mirror
How Much Should You Worry About an Arctic Methane Bomb?
barlevg sends this excerpt from an article at MotherJones:
"It was a stunning figure: $60 trillion. Such could be the cost, according to a recent commentary in Nature, of 'the release of methane from thawing permafrost beneath the East Siberian Sea, off northern Russia... a figure comparable to the size of the world economy in 2012.' More specifically, the paper described a scenario in which rapid Arctic warming and sea ice retreat lead to a pulse of undersea methane being released into the atmosphere. How much methane? The paper modeled a release of 50 gigatons of this hard-hitting greenhouse gas (a gigaton is equal to a billion metric tons) between 2015 and 2025. This, in turn, would trigger still more warming and gargantuan damage and adaptation costs. ... According to the Nature commentary, that methane 'is likely to be emitted as the seabed warms, either steadily over 50 years or suddenly.' Such are the scientific assumptions behind the paper's economic analysis. But are those assumptions realistic—and could that much methane really be released suddenly from the Arctic? A number of prominent scientists and methane experts interviewed for this article voiced strong skepticism about the Nature paper.'"
I supposed the 15-year pause in global warming has prompted alarmists to come up with even more extreme catastrophes.
I worry about things about as much as I have control over them. Things like this I have Zero control so I have Zero worries. About the same I worry about a comet impacting the planet. It might happen and there is nothing I can do. Why worry?
Oh god, here come the jokes.
The Internet King? I wonder if he could provide faster nudity.
How Much Should You Worry About an Arctic Methane Bomb?
Not at all.
Very - like 1000 %. The ignoring of all the environmental issues by the people able to change track will surely lead to a runaway situation in earth climate.
There seems to be a large part of the US population thinking global climate change is a non-issue. Good luck with all of that!
Mind you, not sure where this seabed warming is supposed to come from, with Global cooling (due to lower Solar output. . . .)
And temperatures during the Medieval Optimum were even higher that the peak of the current warming, and no sudden volatilization of Methane Clathrates. . .
Agreed: nothing to see here. . .
Why does it seem that around every corner there is a new totally natural and cyclical process that the news is going to kill us? I am tired of all this. The Earth is a very complex system and we and it will adapt. I think we should actually understand the natural cycles and integrate ourselves so we are not fighting against it all the time.
Permaculture is the future.
Anyone got a match?
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
There's not a whole lot keeping us going venus and dying out. Or going mars and dying out...
But thinking about doing anything to keep us in this nice safe area is expensive. So.. We're not gonna do anything about anything until it's too late.
You future people are fucked...
Cue bean eating scene from Blazing Saddles.
How 'bout some more beans, Mr. Taggart?
Taggart: [fans his hat in the air] I'd say you've had enough!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
and gives evolution another chance.
Might as well ask "what would happen if the sun collapse?", or "what would happen if a huge comet was about to strike the earth" or "What if the oceans dried up all the sudden".
I guess the cool summer this year has dried up donations to the crazies.
All I know is we are hitting record temperatures here (highest ever recorded) and each year after year has the highest average temperature recorded previously.
I don't care if it's natural or not. We subdued nature when we got rid of our local predators, when we domesticated animals, when we cut down forests to grow more food, when we drilled tunnels through mountains, when we made diseases extinct through vaccinations... Modifying nature for our benefit is and has been our business since the first civilizations.
This needs to be contained. The cost is too damn high if we don't.
Top five things I am worried about: 1. Will my employer let me go or reduce me to the "new" 30 hour work week. 2. Is my health insurance premium going to go through the roof. 3. Is gasoline going to climb above $5 usd again. 4. Will Detroit's bankruptcy affect me. (I live in the evil suburbs.) 5. Will there be traffic on the way home today. Things I am not worried about: That's a pretty long list, but Methane bombs are definitely in there somewhere. Seriously, we can all come up with things that are way more important in the REAL world to worry about.
Seems to me we should be figuring out how to tap into this stuff and use it for fuel.
Instead of the Arctic, let's work with the Antarctic, to get opposite results. Less methane, and more good news all round., leaving the cows to rejoice at still being Number One methane producer.
WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
If it happens, there is not much you can do about it.
This is no crisis, it's an opportunity! I vote we send the entire TSA to the arctic right now with orders to pat the polar bears down for arctic methane bombs! We'll get those terrorists this time!
Could you give a citation for that "lowered solar output?" Because wikipedia disagrees with you. Do you work for an oil company or have you just succumbed to their propaganda?
As to should we worry, no. Worrying never solved anything. Worry isn't needed, planning is.
You can worry about global cooling in five or ten thousand years.
Free Martian Whores!
Given consequences as grave as those predicted, it seems like this should be looked at very closely, despite the skepticism of prominent scientists.
According to Betteridge's Law of Headlines, this is a question, so the answer is "no". I'm not sure how well that works, though...
(Though my favorite unexpected use of that "law" was a thread a few months back titled something like "Will your computer run Crysis 3?")
Just had one after lunch. Pew.
As are alarmists. I only believe in trolls, and you've proven my point.
Now what would happen if a stream of methane developed which was ignited by, say, a lightening strike, there would be a rapidly growing forward feedback loop which would release more methane and generate more heat, and more methane, etc. How much oxygen would this methane use up and how much heat would be dumped into the atmosphere? Would this be shrugged off by the earth or would it spell a species killing catastrophe?
If the building is on fire and I yell fire that may make me an alarmist but I am pretty sure everybody who gets out alive will thank me. There is no denying the science - that's why 99.99% of scientists agree on this. It's just you religious zealots who think God will fix this.
If the building is on fire and I yell fire that may make me an alarmist but I am pretty sure everybody who gets out alive will thank me. There is no denying the science - that's why 99.99% of scientists agree on this. It's just you religious zealots who think God will fix this.
Don't forget the Randian zealots who think Her ghost will save us by invoking the free market.
Nature is a pay for only RAG of a publication.
I would ignore most of what they publish and instead pay attention to where the money is coming from for most of this carbon tax crap.
Besides methane isn't the problem, we need to evaporate the oceans and destroy all fresh water/water vapor in the atmosphere a very potent green house gas before it kills us all!
So how about a H20 Tax Exchange?
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
The Earth *IS* the center of the universe, just like everywhere else is.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Mind you, not sure where this seabed warming is supposed to come from, with Global cooling (due to lower Solar output. . . .)
And temperatures during the Medieval Optimum were even higher that the peak of the current warming, and no sudden volatilization of Methane Clathrates. . .
Agreed: nothing to see here. . .
An awful low UID for such a silly post... The current warming is indeed beyond the Medieval Optimum by a significant margin, and Solar output is at a pretty high level (we are at the middle of the current output cycle). Are you trying to troll, or are you literally drowning in Kool Aid and this is the best you could type as you choked for air?
Suppose the $60T estimate is right. Isn't that good? In a closed economy, income equals expenditure. Earth, for now, is a closed economy. Therefore, if we spend $60T on goods and services to deal with methane, then we will have $60T in income.
Nasa http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
(And just so you dont have to read that long complicated article here is a link to a nice picture)
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
But don't let real science get in the way of your research via Wikipedia.
Don't go confusing everyone with science!!
But if it's on the Internet it has to be true.
Unless you are yelling FIRE because you see someone light a bic lighter.
Based on your projection that it could start a fire and burn the building down.
If you would like we could build a computer simulation as to what would happen if the building was to burn from the bic lighter along with projected death rates and evaluations of proper suppression systems as a feedback.
There is no realistic way of stopping the warming that would lead to such a release; short of imposing some kind of totalitarian worldwide government and destroying the world economy, people are not going to stop burning fossil fuels in massive quantities.
Compared to that basic fact, the fact that these predictions are pure guesswork based on many untested assumptions doesn't even matter that much.
"How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"
Seriously though, the Arctic methane "bomb" is one of the less likely scenarios to bring about an apocalypse. See also: Yellowstone Caldera eruption (blankets most of North America in ash, triggers another global ice age), Siberian Traps (mass extinction event, again), or any one of several volcanoes in Iceland (sulfuric acid haze slowly destroying your lungs, anyone?).
The bic lighter was 20 years ago. Right now the fire is something akin to what is happening in California. We are long past the hypothetical simulation stage. We are actually see the effects of it now.
If it's on nasa.gov that's a pretty good start.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
beano prevents gas. we're gonna need a lot of it
It's a self correcting issue. Methane is a fossil fuel, it can be burned to generate energy and the world needs energy. Once the worlds cities start sinking the and the cost of energy starts rising the opposition to exploiting the methane will naturally drop.
If things get bad enough to get this point you have two choices, use the methane and prevent it from going straight into the atmosphere or let it go straight into the atmosphere. Once enough refugees from enough flooded cities start displacing the right / wrong people the opposition will be collapse.
The only question is whether or not we exploit these resources or we let them evaporate into the atmosphere. Of course we could always try to avoid global warming to begin with, but that can only be put off for so long...
Global warming my ass. It's fucking cold and raining here in Wyoming.
If a cool spell disproves global warming, does a warm spell prove it? Or do you prefer to focus on the details that you think support your beliefs?
Ask people who spent June in Phoenix or Las Vegas how they liked the weather this year.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
There is no 15 year pause in global warming.
Then I am a french model.
Now it must be true.
I'd be worried more about all the methane leaking from drilling and fracking sites... just saying.
planet texture maps and more
Political rhetoric aside, if there is a shred of truth to this possible methane bomb event, then humanity is too stupid, and unable to hit the brakes. You wind up with theories on how can human civilization possibly make the type of significant global changes to its daily operation that might mitigate the damage? Drastically cut the population via conventional weapons or some bio-engineered attack on humanity? Jam the majority of human population into giant bio-domed metropolises? (nah, that's sci-fi fantasy). I'm leaning more on mass-extinction level event that accelerates on top of the existing mass-extinction event already in progress, that wipes out everything except maybe cockroaches. Jesus isn't going to save us from our stupidity. Either way, its a possible type of armageddon, no matter what you believe.
You may be interested in this.
After enjoying the review of the creationist tactic of combating science by means of a letter signed by mostly non-experts, scroll down to the plot and consider it carefully. Notice anything?
OTOH, the link contains facts, which may cause you irreparable harm if you click it.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
wikipedia disagrees with you.
Are you fucking kidding? Wikipedia? The "source" that any jackass can edit and put in anything he wants?
Nobody is going to spend trillions of dollars to "cure" global warming.
Plus, it's easier just to make people move from places that are inhospitable.
Everything you need to know about the end of the world you can see from hiking slot-canyons in southern Utah. You'll notice the rocks are composed of layers; 0.3 meters of red sandstone and then a thin layer of black, then the next 0.3 meters of sandstone and another layer of black. Poke at the layer of black and it's clearly a layer of carbon-based stuff.
Then notice there is a 0.3 meter layer of sandstone sitting just below the surface layer of sagebrush. Clearly it's time. We are the next black layer in the sandstone.
Because you say so eh?
Have you not been paying attention for the last six months? The AGW establishment has admitted the pause and are scrambling to find the reason.
the FBI raided MotherJones offices because they were talking about some dangerous new kind of bomb, confiscating a pressure cooker from there as evidence.
Damn straight! I've had it up to here with these so called scientists. If it's not hot out, right now, in the exact location where you live, we can all put this global warming fear mongering to bed!
A "15 year pause" has nothing to worry us realists because it doesn't matter if you find a trend that is zero.
Go ahead. Knock yourself out finding as many as you like.
What you have to do is prove that the trend is different from the predictions we've made of 0.16C per decade.
Prove the trend predicted is now disproven.
Your "15 year pause" doesn't disprove the trend in the IPCC reports because the trend predicted is within the error bars of the 15 year trend's result.
So far this summer has been nice. We had a few really hot days, but fewer than normal. We didn't get enough rain from our "monsoon," but that's what I say almost every year. It's going to be somewhere between 103F and 107F today which is on the low side of normal.
And looking at our electrical use for the summer, it's about 15% lower than last year which means our A/C units haven't been running as hard.
But go ahead and hype how hot it has been here, especially to anyone in California. We like that, it helps keep more Californians from moving here.
-J
Why haven't we heard about this from the Department of Homeland Security? What are they hiding?
It's just a matter of time before al queda gets its hand on this methane bomb. $60 trillion is just the kind of impact they'd like to unleash on us heathens and infidels.
Have you been paying attention in school?
The trend is not flat.
The trend is positive.
The error bars for such a short period include both zero and the IPCC predicted trend, therefore the 15 years worth of data does not disprove the IPCC's predictions.
Next time in maths class, try doing more than one sum.
Right now the fire is something akin to what is happening in California.
Ok, where and what are these effects we're supposed to be seeing? Haven't you ever heard of confirmation bias?
I was attempting to reference Anon's Wikipedia quip... apparently unsuccessfully...
The current warming is indeed beyond the Medieval Optimum by a significant margin
Where is the evidence for this claim? Need I remind you that no one has actually measured temperatures directly during the Medieval Optimum?
The "15-year pause" in global warming is bunk:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
I've heard of confirmation bias and I STRONGLY AGREE with it.
The bic lighter was 20 years ago.
Yea, matches are so much better.
It's blatantly obvious that numbers like population and energy, food and water consumption are unsustainable given the finite resources on Earth. The question is just what the brick wall will be that puts and end to it, or if it's going to be a combination of several.
Personally I don't believe in the methane bomb but it will be yet another positive feedback (of 7 or 8) that will cause global warming to exceed expectations.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Count me in as a Randian zealot. I pray to Adam Smith to smite my socialist foes. Anyway, appeal to authority arguments have been debunked. Its 99% of respondent scientists in a ten year old survey. Global Cooling first. Then Peak Oil. Then it was Global Warming. Then it was Anthropomorphic Climate Change. Carbon PPM Quantity Tipping points. Fracking Earthquakes. Methane Bombs. It'd be a lot easier to believe all these sounding of alarms if they ever led to different conclusions. They usually end up with the same prognosis: More government oversight over personal freedom, reduced economic output, central planning, Al Gore. I categorically disagree with all the solutions. The fact is that the climate changes and there is no optimal global temperature or level of Co2 or ice percentage. These are arbitrary measurements and a lot more characteristic of Flat Earthers (KEEP THE EARTH THE SAME TEMPERATURE AS THE PAST!) than people who are Global Warming Skeptics.
Then I am a french model.
Pics or it didn't happen.
Haven't you ever heard of confirmation bias?
Someone that disagrees with you seeing predicted results: CONFIRMATION BIAS! You seeing non-predicted results: SEE? YOUR PREDICTIONS ARE WORTHLESS!
Do you see the hypocrisy?
In 2006 the United Nations projected that the Midway and other low elevation islands would be completely under water. Since you say that we are seeing the effects of a fire (not sure which one you allude to?) could you tell me the humanitarian efforts being put into place to rescue all these Global warming refugees.
Tip sideways and light it with a match as it comes out!
Worked back in '68 during a drunken card-game in the UD dorms. No reason why it shouldn't work again.
if you will only believe that witch you can measure directly then you cant even make a modern computer. Indirectly measurable effects are still real and sources of data for indirect measurements from sources which are different in nature and seem to match each other (ice cores from different regions tree rings sediment types and see level effects on rocks) should be trusted unless the person questioning them can come up with a valid reason not too, and "I don't want to have to agree with your theory" is not a valid reason.
I live just outside Vancouver British Columbia Canada, and I own a convertible. I have not had the top up in 5 weeks
If the current weather is caused by global warming, then I say BRING IT ON!
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
The current warming is indeed beyond the Medieval Optimum by a significant margin
Where is the evidence for this claim? Need I remind you that no one has actually measured temperatures directly during the Medieval Optimum?
Then why aren't you trolling Salgak1 for not having evidence? You only scrutinize something that challenges your beliefs? We have a name for that... I would give you a link to a very insightful study but you would no doubt dismiss it as commie propaganda. Good luck out there!
I have my bug out needs all in order, Looking forward to the collapse and the resulting thunderdome.
Welcome to the new age!
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
And of course the solution will be some sort of taxation system.
There is no strong correlation between low UIDs and intelligence.
If you had 30 dollars yesterday, none today, and are being paid 31 dollars tomorrow, that does not mean that you are becoming poorer.
As far as I know, there isn't a theory of Wyoming Warming.
That is why you use statistical methods not common sense. You can mathematically test whether extreme events are happening more regularly than they should with an unchanged environment, you can not say which where caused or how much each was altered but you can show an overall difference, or not as the case may be. This has been done, you wont like the results....
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n7/full/nclimate1452.html
weird how anyone even slightly disagreeing with their view is a "denier" and "works for an oil company".
Could you give a citation for that "lowered solar output?" Because wikipedia disagrees with you.
Nasa http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
(And just so you dont have to read that long complicated article here is a link to a nice picture)
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif
That is a graph of sunspot number. The question was about "lowered solar output."
This is amazingly typical of internet arguments, especially by the greenhouse-effect denying community. When asked to show data supporting their assertion, they show something else entirely, but since it's a graph with numbers and such, it looks scientific. It's a win-win argument for the deniers: readers who aren't familar with the field say "oh, they have data: they must be right." And for people who do understand that the data is irrelevant, in the worst case, it sidetracks the argument onto a completely irrelevant discussion of what the connection between sunspot number is to solar output.
This data addresses your argument.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Wait does this mean the lack of sunspots in 2008 lead to the market crash? Quick someone overlay the business cycles and sunspots. Think I found a way to beat the market.
Your weather may get quite a bit better. There is a good argument to be made that there are huge land masses which will benefit from warmer weather. But that's a different argument than warming isn't happening.
Would you care to substantiate your claim? Data show no such thing as a 15 year pause in global warming. They show it is accelerating.
They bottled up their flatulence within their ancient graveyards to one day reap revenge on the Hominids that hunted them.
Claims like that need some citations before anyone will take them seriously.
You're right. It's closer to 19
Nasa http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
But don't let real science get in the way of your research via Wikipedia.
And don't let real science get in the way of your misconceptions, either. The nature of the link between solar cycles and climate is largely unknown, and is a topic of ongoing research (as you would have gleaned by actually reading the article you linked to). Variation in solar output is a bit more complex than merely noting the range of sunspot numbers or coverage of the solar disk over a cycle. The total output varies by less than 0.1% over a cycle, but its spectral content also varies.
If one were to give your "theory" any credence, then the world must have been cooling for the last half century, as solar cycle 19 was more intense than any since then. FYI, here are the butterfly diagrams for the last century or so of solar cycles.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Global warming is for idiots and liberals, if you make any distinction between the two? Oh yeah even Repubs throw them in. Tax tax tax the dumb.
A real randian would not like adam smith very much.
I am going to guess you have read neither.
You think oil production has not peaked?
You can worry about global cooling in five or ten thousand years.
Much like the world did when I was back in highschool in the 70's.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
I'm 45 now, and since I started watching the news around 10 or so, I've heard news stories about the world about to come to end it for various reasons: nuclear bombs, acid rain, over population, full shortage, pollution,.... so far it is still spinning.
A cool spell doesn't disprove global warming, but at every heat wave, there's a chorus of OMGCO2WEREALLGONNADIE!!! so an occasional "I went camping last weekend, in California, in August, and nearly froze my tucchis off" (true, by the way) scoffing isn't any more out of line.
Yes, weather isn't climate. We all know that.
Me, I've been campaigning to go full speed ahead replacing coal with nukes for over 30 years. The same folks (for the most part) who are the very loudest at the OMGCO2WEREALLGONNADIE!!! crap are also the very loudest at the OMGRADIATIONWEREALLGONNADIE!!!! scare-mongering.
Arithmetic deniers. The options in the near term (several decades) are: 1) Coal. 2) Nuclear. 3) Collapse of industrial/technological civilzation and very rapid very drastic population drop (i.e. gigadeath, not attrition).
No, we don't want to be dumping nearly as much CO2 into the air as we do. But we don't want to kill off 80%+ of the Earth's population either. If nothing else, very few of those people will be inclined to go gentle into that good night just because the energy omni-obstructionists say so, and they'll resist with everything they've got, up to and including hydrogen bombs.
To quote Stuart Brand, "I am not so much pro-nuclear as I am pro-arithmetic."
If they are Californians already, can they really move to California?
Sounds like you are in denial...and if you say you aren't that is just confirmation that you are definitely in denial.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
KPHX Average Temperatures
June 2012
Avg Max: 106F
Avg Mean: 94F
June 2013
Avg Max: 108F
Avg Mean: 95F
July 2012
Avg Max: 105F
Avg Mean: 94F
July 2013
Avg Max: 106F
Avg Mean: 96F
Source: http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KPHX/2012/7/1/MonthlyHistory.html/
Apparently your electricity bill is not a good indicator of the weather.
And the title of the alleged research is "A decade of weather extremes". Only a decade which is especially unconvincing given that there are no more than about 15 such decades of weather records anywhere in the world. So insufficient data for the claim that is made. This is the sort of tiresome crap you think is evidence.
Then all the trees in stanley park die due to lack of moisture...
Who buys a convertible in BC? lol
... a 1994 book by John Barnes based on the premise that in the early 21st century, a large release of clathrate compounds, as the result of a nuclear explosion, leads to warmer oceans and massive hurricanes, which by novel's end kill at least 1 billion people. So a cost in the tens of trillions of dollars is plausible.
Do you see the hypocrisy?
In other words, confirmation bias is ok, as long as it's in your favor.
if you will only believe that witch you can measure directly then you cant even make a modern computer.
Well, I can't make a modern computer either way. So I guess your argument is a waste of your time.
Indirectly measurable effects are still real and sources of data for indirect measurements from sources which are different in nature and seem to match each other (ice cores from different regions tree rings sediment types and see level effects on rocks) should be trusted unless the person questioning them can come up with a valid reason not too
Such as those metrics don't actually measure what you think they are measuring? Do you have any other concerns I can address while we're at it?
I just want to state how awesome you are. Since you've read all of Ayn Rand's books which one would you say is your favorite? Atlas Shrugged is the trendy choice over the Fountainhead but I can't help but to enjoy it more. Did you prefer Adam Smith's "Of Moral Sentiments" or the classic "Wealth of Nations" more? Even though Smith's opus was Wealth of Nations and outlined his general thesis of economics I prefer Of Moral Sentiments because it better juxtaposed the irrationality of the market through behavioral economics. Just because the current Administration is trying to stifle the production of fossil fuels does not mean we have peaked. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRFPUS1&f=A Dependent on the whims of the government we could surpass peak oil. New technologies have allowed us to incentivize the mining of prior cost prohibitive oil fields. So my argument is if we have reached peak oil its because of our own constraints not because its physically not there. I'm not even going to argue Ayn Rand not liking Adam Smith. That is trollbait.
"The paper modeled a release of 50 gigatons of..." methane. If there were 50 gigatons of natural gas under the sea desperately wanting to make itself available to those above land, do you have any idea how much money could be made from that??
50000 megatons of LNG converts to 2,462,894,953,450 MMBtu. 2.46 trillion MMBtu of LNG. Let's assume a 50% recovery efficiency. 1.23 trillion MMBtu. At the current market price of 3.23 USD per MMBtu, that's 3.97 trillion USD to be made.
Is there seriously ANYONE who really believes that 4 trillion USD of energy is just sitting untouched and ignored by the Energy sector? If 4 trillion dollars of LNG was available there, companies would be CLAMORING to gain control of the area, wouldn't they?
Just because someone dreams it up in a computer model is no reason to skip sanity checks on calculations.
Then why aren't you trolling Salgak1 for not having evidence?
Because there's plenty of people to challenge his claims. There isn't plenty of people to challenge the conventional wisdom of climate change. Look at the size of the threads replying to his post. The herd is running the other way.
I would give you a link to a very insightful study but you would no doubt dismiss it as commie propaganda.
Why speculate when we can just look at someone who did that? For example, we have this gem who claimed "statistical methods" were used to show that extreme events were more likely than they would in an unchanged environment. A glance at the paper told me everything. The claim was based on a mere ten years of weather data and the authors had no idea what extreme weather should look like in the absence of a "human influence on climate". It has to be Communists!
So it is probably for the best that you didn't challenge me with a link. I might have to look at the abstract and find the glaring flaws in the study again.
That's all very well and good when there's an actual route of escape.
Dunno if you noticed this or not, but we're kinda stuck here... and barring some extraordinary and unprecedented breakthrough in physics and energy consumption, unfortunately that's not likely to change anytime within the next couple of millennia.
So metaphorically, people who are screaming about global warming are going around yelling "fire" when there's absolutely no possible way that anybody who'se currently inside is getting out of the building anyways. A more prudent exercise than alarming people would be to do whatever you can, personally, to try to mitigate disaster... since going around shouting at people isn't going to accomplish much other than make other people's lives miserable.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
so the piece doesn't explicitly state that there is a relationship, but it suggests there is one.
Correct. The data given as a putative "response" is irrelevant to the question on so many levels it hurts. It doesn't state what the connection between sunspots and solar activity is; it shows the normal 11-year sunspot cycle, not anything different or unusual, and it shows only about one and a half cycles, not enough of a long term time series to even judge whether sunspot number (much less solar output) is going up or down.
So, with respect to the request, "Could you give a citation for that 'lowered solar output?' "-- fail.
But-- as you go on to demonstrate-- it does serve excellently to completely change the subject, and thus does its job of distracting people from noticing that there is no evidence whatsoever for the original assertion by changing the topic to a discussion of the relationship between sunspots and climate.
On that subject, the best data at the moment seems to show that the onset of the "little ice age" cooling was correlated with volcanic eruptions, and hid little or nothing to do with sunspots.
http://arstechnica.com/science/2012/02/eruptions-not-quiet-sun-may-have-triggered-little-ice-age/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=volcanoes-may-have-sparked
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
"Well, I can't make a modern computer either way. So I guess your argument is a waste of your time."
Are you trying to sound stupid? let me be more detailed and we will try again. Indirect measurements work well, very well, much of our modern technology relies on them to work at all, so a vast proportion of our society would fail if they where not both reliable and accurate. Arguing that they are bad just because they are indirect fails as an argument because for it to be true things that do work must not work and things we can rely upon to be consistent should be prone to regular failure. Because of this you need some reason for why a specific indirect measurement is bad not just "was not there don't believe you".
"Such as those metrics don't actually measure what you think they are measuring?"
That is why you take measurements from things that where formed using different processes. For each different process there is a chance that that specific process may be affected by things other than what we are trying to measure. If they disagree then we need to understand why, but given that the are each from a fundamentally different source the chance that they would be different from reality in the same way at the same time to the same extent is vanishingly small. So when they agree then they should be valid proxies for the things we are measuring.
In this case they agree quite well enough, so do you have a specific reason for distrusting them? can you explain why they should all be wrong in the same way?
"God does not throw dice.". But He has been known to throw a few rocks, every once in a while : ... Throughout the late 1700's the French Academy of Science adopted the view that meteorites cannot exist and all such collections were discarded in embarrassment. At that time, Antoine Lavoisier, the father of modern chemistry adamantly ascertained, "Rocks cannot fall from the sky because there are no rocks in the sky." Then on the night of April 26, 1803, two thousand meteorites thunderously pummeled the French countryside flattening that paradigm in a hurry. ... " -
- "
Then I am a french model.
Do you happen to be dating a ditzy blonde woman who doesn't believe insurance companies have apps for cell phones?
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
No other planets in our solar system support life. That doesn't leave us a lot of choices. The nearest star is about 40,000 years away with rockets twice as fast as those that exist presently and acceleration to near light speeds would shear the proteins and nucleic acids apart anyway. Perhaps its time to get serious about protecting the one habitable place for humans in the known universe before those who would profits at everyone's expense destroys it.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201101-201112.png
So these guys must be oil shills too? Or do you disagree with that the blue line has any significance after about year 2000?
Do you chant to the mirror or something?
And of course the solution will be some sort of taxation system.
A carbon tax should be offset by a decrease in income tax, leaving the overall tax burden the same. It should also include a carbon tariff, or the production of energy-intensive goods and services will simply move to countries that haven't yet enacted a carbon tax.
Does adding another kind of tax bother you so much that you'd forgo the chance to harness market forces to the goal of limiting CO2 emissions?
wikipedia disagrees with you.
Are you fucking kidding? Wikipedia? The "source" that any jackass can edit and put in anything he wants?
I just edited the Wikipedia article on 'Wikipedia', and it states that only authorized experts are allowed to edit Wikipedia articles. So you are now wrong, because Wikipedia says so.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
That graph shows a decade where the temperature is beyond anything seen anywhere else on the chart. Way above the level 15 years ago. And certainly way above 50 or 100 years ago. How does that prove your point?
Indirect measurements work well, very well, much of our modern technology relies on them to work at all, so a vast proportion of our society would fail if they where not both reliable and accurate.
Because someone went through the trouble of directly measuring what was being indirectly measured to insure that the indirect measurement was good enough. That's not happening with climatology. And that's generous granting that you might really know some society-crucial indirect measurements in the first place.
If they disagree then we need to understand why, but given that the are each from a fundamentally different source the chance that they would be different from reality in the same way at the same time to the same extent is vanishingly small.
Not unless the bias comes from a common source. For example, most such temperature proxies have been handled, aggregated, interpreted by the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, which has a known bias to support AGW (to the extent that they would refuse to discuss issues with temperature proxies in public).
Finally, you're committing the fallacy of assuming that because we did something successfully elsewhere that we're doing it just as successfully in climatology.
You can worry about global cooling in five or ten thousand years.
Much like the world did when I was back in highschool in the 70's.
Hmm, yep, one article talking about the documented temperature decline between 1880 and 1950, which itself even included data showing the rate of decline was decreasing, sure does undo the past 40 years of climate science that has taken much more data into account. Surely, if we were wrong about something back when we had 1/10th the information we do today, that means we are always going to be wrong about it! I like where your head is.
The problem for trying to tie global warming or cooling to the sun's radiant energy, insolation, is that the variation is too small to account for the dramatic changes in the Earth's climate in the past 200 years. Maximum to minimum variation in solar activity is only about 0.1-0.01%, which is far to small to explain the nearly 2 degree C change in average global temperature change in the past 200 years.
With no useful evidence sufficient solar variability, global warming deniers often turn to the Milankovitch cycle of perturbations in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit caused by Saturn and Jupiter. Unfortunately, for the denies this theory predicts the Earth should be cooling when in fact its warming.
A tell tale sign that global warming deniers have no clue is their steadfast inability to explain why nearly every single glacier on the planet is now receding. They ignore answering this question like the plague. When in discussion of climate change notice that no global warming denier will ever attempt to explain how this could be happening if the world is not getting warmer.
(same AC)
Good news; only 6 weeks to the next WG1 report: https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/
Funny thing, if you look at temperature averages over a longer period, it doesn't exist at all.
Ah yes we should dismiss a the fact that the latest 6% of the data is different from the remaining 94% of the data in a manner that makes sense and matches predictions given our current understanding of climate systems. No you can not dismiss proof just because it is "not enough yet", despite no evidence that it is wrong and no reason to think it is incorrect other than wish full thinking, you need a reason.
The more different types of valid proof that are gathered the more you need to disprove, and two different types of proof are stronger support together than the sum of their strength. This is not just a matter of a decade of odd weather, which you could dismiss if it was otherwise unsupported, we have an understanding of the climate and how it should respond to this sort of event. We built this up from historical data and made models based on this as well as understanding of the way the system works now. The predictions based on these models matches the current trend confirming them, the fact that it is also found to be extreme enough that this decade is exceptional is not a lone point and adds to this, you can not dismiss the models as unproven when you have proof or the weather as just weird when it matches models which are based on such extensive data that point in to a further trend.
Ha! H4rr4r, you've been pwned. Let us know when it stops hurting to sit down.
It was still colder in Phoenix in June than it was the year I moved here in 1995.
Also, in 1995 it was snowing in Minnesota until late April. A few years prior, the snow never completely covered the ground.
The fact that the weather can change so drastically so quickly should disprove any scare mongering.
I remember when they used to blame the warm winters or cold winters on El Nino's intensity that year.
Now we've got a bunch of chicken littles running around.
Work Safe Porn
Actually, Wikipedia does include a lot of references to primary peer reviewed literature. Keep in mind that while any jackass can edit things, that hardly means they stay inaccurate for very long.
Ah yes we should dismiss a the fact that the latest 6% of the data is different from the remaining 94% of the data in a manner that makes sense and matches predictions given our current understanding of climate systems.
Yes. Especially when you consider that most of the 94% is pretty bad. And there's always confirmation bias. You might remember me talking about that. There will always be some sort of extreme 1 in 15 weather in any given decade of the last 150 years.
The predictions based on these models matches the current trend confirming them, the fact that it is also found to be extreme enough that this decade is exceptional is not a lone point and adds to this, you can not dismiss the models as unproven when you have proof or the weather as just weird when it matches models which are based on such extensive data that point in to a further trend.
The big thing you are missing here is that for something to be evidence, it has to distinguish between the null hypothesis and the hypothesis you desire. The presence of extreme weather, especially when starting with the skimpy data we've collected over all history, is to be expected. It doesn't support your model any more than it supports the negation of your model.
New technologies have allowed us to incentivize the mining of prior cost prohibitive oil fields.
You do realize that your statement illustrates exactly what happens when you hit peak production of any limited resource, don't you? The invisible-hand-of-the-free-markets don't spend money on developing new technology to better extract resources if those resource cheap and abundant to get to.
It goes in cycles. First we thought the sun went around the earth. Then we discovered that it makes more sense to view the earth as going around the sun. Then we progressed to realizing that the sun is really going around the galaxy every ~250 million years. Finally we came to the realization that, for certain reference frames, the sun *does* go around the earth, the maths are just much more difficult to work with. Similarly the earth is flat in the sense that its surface can be viewed as a two dimensional object and it is all confusingly dependent on how you look at it.
Who buys a convertible in BC? lol
Future thinkers, apparently. lol
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Where I live we hit 122 degrees in *June*. It was something like a 50-year record high. When people think of Southern California they forget that half of it is the frickin' Mojave Desert.
Reminds me of the John Barnes novel "Mother of Storms" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_of_Storms...things get environmentally exciting on a horrendous scale...quickly.
Not fifteen years. About 8 years (since 2006).
http://climate.nasa.gov/images/616910main_gisstemp_2011_graph_lrg.jpg
There was a peak in about 2005, then temperatures fell down until 2001 when they had a similar temperature high (not a new high).
The five year mean temperature increased about .2 degrees between 2000 and 2005ish and then had held steady for a while.
I dislike many of these graphs because they are scaled to make the increase look very dramatic. Convincing people of the reality of global warming is as much political as scientific so I suppose such tricks are necessary.
Anti global warming folks do the reverse and set the scale such that the fluctuation looks meaningless.
Ice remains at freezing a long time but eventually it does melt.
Fundamental problem is TOO MANY PEOPLE.
And we are not going to address that so the rest is just pointless.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I did not really like any of her books. They are generally poorly written and hypocritical. I am not a fan of objectivism, which is really just capitalist nihilism. I prefered Wealth of Nations.
What you are talking about is a resource peaking. As the price shoots up suddenly fields that would not be productive suddenly can be, but supply does not really increase.
How is it trollbait? She supported might makes right as her only real moral philosophy. Your favorite Adam Smith book clearly contradicts that.
One of my all-time favorite flicks. RIP, Cleavon Little, Harvey Korman, Slim Pickens, Madeline Kahn, Dom DeLuise and Alex "Mongo" Karras.
[/OT_trip_down_memory_lane]
I don't care why you're posting AC
This spring and summer in the United States has been closer to the long term average than most previous years. However, you have to look at what's happening globally. Right now, Europe and Asia are experiencing ALL-TIME record heat: http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2483
Over the past decade, record high temperatures have occurred twice as often as record low temperatures. Even in a warming climate, we would expect to see times when the weather is colder than normal, even record breaking cold. However, the fact that the number of high-temperature records far exceeds the number of low-temperature records is strong proof of a warming climate. A single 'nice summer' is not proof of anything.
Simple thermostats don't measure temperature directly they measure the level of the bend in a strip made of metals with different expansions at different temperatures, we regularly measure electricity through magnetism or visa versa, diabetic blood glucose strips create a colour coded proxy for blood glucose, PH meters measure the effect of the free ions on the solutions electric potential VS a reference solution. This is just a few examples, consider what happens if you get water purification wrong or ect...
For ice cores the proxy is the isotope balance of the gas trapped in the bubbles between what would have been snow but is now compacted and sealed ice, tree rings measure plant growth rates, sea levels obvious but crude measure of polar ice, and sediment measures such as how much desert on the planet at a given time via radioisotope dating can also be used. These are not more complex nor more distant you need something that lasts and is effected by climate in a reactively constant manner that can be measured today and that we can calibrate from modern measurements, hard to do but simple in principle.
As for your "common" source of bias the oil industry has enough money to fund the complete reimplementation of all the data gathering steps, for pocket change. They are also no strangers to industrial espionage, they have not bothered to recollect that data and they are not idiots so I assume even they think that the raw data has not been tampered though they disagree on the interpretation.
It is also worth noting that a complete reimplementation of the current climate models was done by a physicist with funding from the Koch brothers, oil and chemicals invested multimillionaires who also fund many of the climate change denier organisations at least in part. This study went back to the weather stations to get the unfiltered data direct from source and reimplemented the models with the help of not previously climate connected researchers. He still got the same result as the rest of the climate models, and so then publicly conceded that he was now convinced that climate change was real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Muller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth_Surface_Temperature
Global warming isn't working out the way the dems want so now they must find other scare tactics.
The moral of the chicken little proverb is: sure there are people like Algore. But only idiots follow them.
It doesn't even seem so extreme. I mean, all we have to do is print up 60 trillion then there's no more problem, right?
Now, if the problem would cost 21,000,001 bitcoins to fix, we would have a horrendous situation! :)
Simple thermostats don't measure temperature directly they measure the level of the bend in a strip made of metals with different expansions at different temperatures
That is quite deceptive. I'll just note that there is a direct, accurate, and well known correlation between the bending of those metals and the temperature of those metals. And the thermostat is designed to limit the extent of other effects. That makes it a direct measurement of temperature.
For ice cores the proxy is the isotope balance of the gas trapped in the bubbles between what would have been snow but is now compacted and sealed ice, tree rings measure plant growth rates, sea levels obvious but crude measure of polar ice, and sediment measures such as how much desert on the planet at a given time via radioisotope dating can also be used. These are not more complex nor more distant you need something that lasts and is effected by climate in a reactively constant manner that can be measured today and that we can calibrate from modern measurements, hard to do but simple in principle.
Tree rings can't. Recall one of the many dramas of climategate was the private discussion of the discarding of tree ring data from after 1960 precisely because it failed as a temperature proxy. And I find it interesting how you ignore difficulties (such as not measuring what you think proxies should be measuring) as "simple in principle".
In practice, you are wasting my time with breezy generalizations.
... I owe you one; pesky humans.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
I fail to see what is favorable about having your house burn down because global warming is drying out much of the vegetation in the American southwest.
Perhaps you could explain.
Friggin' android/nexus quote marks.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom/201101-201112.png
So these guys must be oil shills too? Or do you disagree with that the blue line has any significance after about year 2000? Do you chant to the mirror or something?
A graph with poor granularity. How about a look at the raw data?
And then you can compare the butterfly diagrams posted by the parent to the surface temperature readings from the last 130 years. The Earth is undergoing significant climate change.
I wouldn't blame the GP entirely though. Scientists are so bad at actually relaying information to regular folks that it partially ends up in the domain of moneyed cranks that can afford to pay for good animations and pseudo-documentaries. Also, it doesn't help that many of the politicians and influential business people are old and don't care what happens in 50 years time.
Worry a lot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane
Scroll down to atmospheric methane.
Calthrates
Arctic methane release from permafrost and methane clathrates is an expected consequence and further cause of global warming.[48] [49] [50]
You should read those cites.
JJ
ITYS
Anyway, appeal to authority arguments have been debunked. Its 99% of respondent scientists in a ten year old survey. Global Cooling first. Then Peak Oil. Then it was Global Warming. Then it was Anthropomorphic Climate Change. Carbon PPM Quantity Tipping points. Fracking Earthquakes. Methane Bombs. It'd be a lot easier to believe all these sounding of alarms if they ever led to different conclusions. They usually end up with the same prognosis: More government oversight over personal freedom, reduced economic output, central planning, Al Gore.
It's apparent that you have no more than a superficial knowledge of any of those things if you are able to dismiss all of them so easily as simply vehicles for more government control. If you could make a cogent scientific argument about it I'd be more willing to listen to you. As you say there is no optimal temperature to the Earth and it doesn't really care if humans exist or not. But most humans do and most of those things you mention have to potential to massively disrupt our civilization (global cooling was just a blip that was quickly dismissed). So I suppose your Randian solution is to just let civilization slowly fall apart as the effects of climate change worsen. I'd rather see my grandchildren have a decent life.
Not fifteen years. About 8 years (since 2006).
http://climate.nasa.gov/images/616910main_gisstemp_2011_graph_lrg.jpg
There was a peak in about 2005, then temperatures fell down until 2001 when they had a similar temperature high (not a new high).
It was actually surpassed by 2010, which was apparently the hottest on record according to the same dataset from NASA used for that graph. Given the 2013 data isn't in yet, we're talking 2 years, not 15. The 5 year average high point is still centred on 2005.
I dislike many of these graphs because they are scaled to make the increase look very dramatic. Convincing people of the reality of global warming is as much political as scientific so I suppose such tricks are necessary.
That is true in one way, but the graphs can also be misleading in the other direction as well. Many people will look at the temperature scale and think, "Oh, thats just 0.7C in 130 years, nothing to worry about". These are only graphing surface air temperatures. They do not include the fact that the ocean (1.3 billion cubic kilometers of water!) is also heating up, albeit more slowly for most of it than at the surface. And there is ice melting at the poles: the latent energy it takes to melt ice into water is the same amount it takes to heat the same mass of liquid water from 0 to 100 degrees C. These are massive heat sinks, but still of finite capacity, and slowly filling up/disappearing. The actual amount of energy retention change in our climate is in fact under-represented by an analysis of the surface air temperature.
Poor Methane! Forever alone... Even Planet Earth opens the ozone window whenever you're around. :(
This the case only if the universe is infinite and follow some sort of uniform distribution.
I'm guessing the GP is pointing to the trendline being downward since y2k.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Adding to the aforementioned fact that no habitable planets exist close by, we are not even sure we can reproduce in micro-gravity. Also, what effect will the cumulative generic damage from cosmic rays have on a captive population?
We are still very very far from slapping our collective chest and telling Scotty to beam us up.
Because someone went through the trouble of directly measuring what was being indirectly measured to insure that the indirect measurement was good enough. That's not happening with climatology.
I doubt you have enough knowledge to even know if that's true or not of climatology. Do you have any evidence that "most such temperature proxies have been handled, aggregated, interpreted by the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia" or is that just your biased opinion? As far as I know most temperature proxies are done by the individual researchers and most of them are not associated with the CRU.
STFU. Seriously. That's one single article in the non-peer reviewed journal Newsweek. That's also all you can find from the 70s. Most people who care to know already knows this, most probably you too. I refuse to believe you're not deliberately perpetuating a long debunked myth for the purpose of propaganda. In other words, you're dishonest prick. I hope you're ashamed of yourself. I know your mother should be.
Dream on.
Your an idiot. Seriously. I'm not perpetuating anything, merely pointing out a link on the web. I didn't qualify it. THIS is why people are starting to call people like you envronmental fascists. NO ONE can have a view that contradicts yours, right?
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Except it is going up till about 2003. And even then it is mostly higher highs with some offsetting lower lows causing a very slight downtrend. But staying near an absolute top isn't evidence of a collapse.
It's not a view, it's a claim: "like the world did [worry about global cooling] when I was back in highschool in the 70's". Your claim is false, it's proven false, it's known to be false. Fascists never were overly preoccupied with the truth, a trait they have in common with you. However, I don't find that a reason for calling you, or people like you, fascist. You're just a dishonest prick. A common liar.
You look at the short downturn since 2000 but ignore the other short term downturns that happened over the previous century. That's scientific of you. /sarc
Is it 60 trillions USD once, or on each year?
No fear: http://www.wimp.com/nofear/
Mundus Vult Decipi
The longest we've got is about 400 million years or so before the Sun starts making it impossible to live on the planet.
I think the figure you are looking for is more like 4 billion years although if in 400 million years time there are still humans as we know them around I would be amazed - there are very few (any?) complex organisms which have survived for that length of time.
As I remember it, there was some discussion about the affects of CO2 vs soot IIRC with discussion about how much CO2 induced warming would be counteracted by soot caused global dimming. Along with a cold trend the media did harp on the global cooling angle and without an internet we didn't have much access to actual science articles. The models also were much more primitive then. By the '80's it was becoming obvious that the CO2 would have the larger influence especially with a lot of other pollutants getting cleaned up.
This also raises questions about the affects of Chinese industrialization, especially the large number of dirty coal plants. Don't see much discussion about whether it is counteracting the warming or not and how much. Of course the thing with soot is it has a short life time compared to CO2 and even if it is delaying warming, once the Chinese get more health conscious and clean up their act temperature might go up fast as we know the quantity of CO2 is fast increasing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
I'm Poe'd. I can't tell if you're serious or writing a parody. Good one.
I still have never heard a reasonable explanation on how the 'climategate' wasn't a case of fraud. The explanation I heard was that the researchers didn't do anything unethical, they just hide the data that contradicted the outcome they wanted. As I understand it, the tree ring data was used up until direct measurements started being taken. They 'hide' the tree ring data after that because the tree ring data didn't match up with the actual temperatures. The tree ring data was shown to be invalid, yet the continued to use it anyway when it produced the outcome they were looking for.
Did I miss some announcement where they removed tree ring data completely, or are they still using known bad data?
Peak Oil is most certainly a sham. There are something like a dozen different definitions, and those who swear by it keep cycling through them in an attempt to sound like it makes sense. The definitions range from bizarrely ridiculous, to irrelevant non-issues, to conditions that have continued to repeat themselves for the last 70 years.
Unless you define what you mean by 'peak oil', your question cannot be answered.
The thing about that "lowered solar output" is that it's a part of a cycle. I forget the length, though IIRC is isn't the same as the 11 year sunspot cycle. But it's not a permanent lowering. It's not even a long-term lowering. And, again IIRC, it's predicted to be already nearing the next up-swing.
Yes, there is currently lowered solar output. So **** what! It's just one part of a cycle, and it doesn't stop at the bottom just because you want it to.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Permafrost melt. http://unc.news21.com/index.php/stories/alaska.html
You can both have fewer hot days and a higher average temperature.
Besides, the folk at the airport weather station are in on the conspiracy to bump the numbers to keep the Californians in California.
-J
The tree rings only diverge from the other measurements for the most recent dates, after 1960, for the rest of the history we have they match either our own hand measurements or the other proxies available so are unlikely to be wrong. My suspicion is that it may be a pollution specific to or more prevalent in the industry of modern society car fumes or acid stress form acid rain, or something like that, which would explain why they only recently started to separate. The supposedly damming emails oft quoted where where they where discussing how to represent the data in the most understandable way, the actual problem with the trees was known across the whole field and published already at the point of their paper even if they wanted to hide it something as crude as this would have had no effect.
"quite deceptive"
No it is not, that is the whole point..... there is a direct accurate and well known correlation between temperature and the isotope balance in the atmosphere. It may not have been designed but that does not automatically make it worse. They are not bad proxies no mater how strongly you assert they are.
For the tree rings we have 2 possibilities, 1 the tree rings never where accurate, 2 they are accurate for older data but something, probably us, started to make things less linked to climate around the start of the 1960s. To see which one is more likely take several non tree based measures of climate and compare them too the trees over a long period of time, the longer they match them less likely that the older tree data is bad, oh wait we already have a huge amount of data compared and it is only the last few decades and only in the higher northern areas that it really starts to go bad.... so which is more likely?
there is a direct accurate and well known correlation between temperature and the isotope balance in the atmosphere
This is an example of making shit up. The "direct, accurate, and well known correlation" isn't so.
Second, we aren't actually measuring the isotope balance of that atmosphere, but of what got to us now say via ice cores or deposits in lakes.
For the tree rings we have 2 possibilities, 1 the tree rings never where accurate, 2 they are accurate for older data but something, probably us, started to make things less linked to climate around the start of the 1960s.
So far this is passable logic.
To see which one is more likely take several non tree based measures of climate and compare them too the trees over a long period of time, the longer they match them less likely that the older tree data is bad, oh wait we already have a huge amount of data compared and it is only the last few decades and only in the higher northern areas that it really starts to go bad.... so which is more likely?
That's a poor bluff. There's no actual measurement of that climate except through a bunch of easy to distort proxies.
Why do you need to project such false confidence?
As far as I know most temperature proxies are done by the individual researchers and most of them are not associated with the CRU.
What did I say? "Handled, aggregated, and interpreted". I didn't say "done by". They aren't famous for researching and measuring temperature proxies (though their researchers do a bit of this), but rather for accumulating them into aggregate climate reconstructions.
Do you have any evidence that "most such temperature proxies have been handled, aggregated, interpreted by the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia" or is that just your biased opinion?
They have 150 years of instrumental measurements of surface temperatures. This is the primary link between modern climate observations and pre-industrial temperature proxies. Many climatologists still refer to standard CRU paleoclimate reconstructions like the Hadley Center/CRU series when calibrating their own temperature proxies or discussing climate phenomena in the industrial to modern period.
In addition, they have aggregated extensive collections of paleoclimate data.
In addition, this data has been processed and interpreted. There are an absurd degree of vagaries in how, when, and where the original data was collected. Various undesirable defects such as the urban heat island effect or local issues (permanent moving of weather stations from one location to a nearby but somewhat different location) can distort long temperature records.
These records are incorporated into a lot of research, for example, the famous Mann et al "hockey stick" paper which used "the collection of annual resolution dendroclimatic[eg, tree ring], ice core, ice melt, and long historical records used by Bradley and Jones" (Jones being the head of the CRU) and "Monthly instrumental land air and sea surface temperature grid-point data (Fig. 1b) from the period 1902-95" which also was provided by the same authors as before.
Here, both most of the pre-industrial records and the industrial era records were provided by CRU sources.
IPCC has often quoted such data sets and has CRU researchers on some of their committees.
There's a great deal of genuine complexity and nonuniformity in the data that the CRU collects. What they do has to be done in order to use this data effectively. But the point behind my original remark is that any bias in how the CRU does this work would affect a great deal of research and derivative models. I think it's actually happened, but YMMV. They are gatekeepers for significant parts of climatology and I think it's poor science to discount that risk.
So the grandparent's claim (that there is nothing to worry about, since it was warmer then and nothing happened) is utterly baseless, then?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
This is the case because of the way the Universe expanded after the Big Bang. Look at a ball, then find the center of the surface of the ball, if your ball is a perfect sphere then any point you pick is as much the center of the surface as any other.
The fundamental problem is not people.
It's a capitalist system where using the cheapest resource (short-term) pays off. On the long term those short term solutions kill us all. Just look at the oil industry, the coal industry, the industry digging up everything fossile and releasing it into the atmosphere. The balance built over many millions of years is upset and perturbed. A new balance point is found of course, but it might mean the Earth ends up like Venus. Dead with no life. No humans, no culture, no kittens, no puppies. No nothing. Just acid rain and rocks.
Wrong. There was one article. One. That's not harping. If there were more than one, then surely they would have been escavated by the denialists by now. Yet they cling to that Newsweek article as if it were referenced by everyone else, every day.
As for scientific articles, you've got access to Google Scholar right now, and guess what? It's got year delimiters. If you want to "teach the controversy", at least use readily available data. Here is a review article to get you started. It's a review article, an overview of the then current research on the subject, so you'll see that it actually has something to say about soot and aerosols:
I'm a bit impressed that the referenced article by Yamamoto and Tanaka (1972) is also freely available on the interwebs, and can be found here. And even that one accepts global warming due to CO2, and the local variability of aerosols.
Your an idiot.
Delicious irony! You're uneducated, which explains why you've fallen for oil company propaganda.
But you go ahead and listen to the Koch brothers self-serving fairy tales.
Free Martian Whores!
You're just a dishonest prick. A common liar.
Considering his "your an idiot" I'd say he's not a liar, but an uneducated, ignorantly opinionated fool who's fallen for Koch brothers' lies.
There seem to be an awful lot like him here, judging from wild swings in the moderation of my original comment. 20% actually modded it "troll" despite the fact that was informative, and intended to be educational with links to wikipedia explaining the science.
Someone like him, whom uses greengrocer's apostrophes, thinks lose and loose are the same verb, doesn't know the difference between who's and whose, is very obviously uneducated. Ever notice that none of the deniers have any concept of spelling, grammar, punctuation, capitalization, etc?
Free Martian Whores!
If you'll notice, the NASA article and graphs are very short term, 1995 to the present. That small a time is a rounding error in the grand scheme of things.
Read your own link a little more slowly.
Free Martian Whores!
It'll happen again.
No, this is NOT the "end of the world".
br Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
LOL! Warmites are so cute in their dogged insistence that only cherry-picked information be considered! I'll bet you believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy too.
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Recall one of the many dramas of climategate was the private discussion of the discarding of tree ring data from after 1960 precisely because it failed as a temperature proxy.
"Private discussion"? People wrote fucking papers about it. Jacoby 1995 and Briffa 1998 for example.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Nobody "hid" anything - they found that the most recent tree ring data didn't match the temperature data as well as the earlier tree ring data did. They wrote papers about it. It was a well known problem.
The tree ring data isn't invalid, it just has its limits.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
So the grandparent's claim (that there is nothing to worry about, since it was warmer then and nothing happened) is utterly baseless, then?
Denialism is obviously a quantum effect - we know the MO was warmer and simultaneously we don't know what the temperature was.
In order to collapse the wave function we need an observer, and the denialists are dont seem tp be aware enough to count.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Have you not been paying attention for the last six months? The AGW establishment has admitted the pause and are scrambling to find the reason.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/uah/from:1997/trend/plot/uah/from:1999/trend
Wonder why you are so interested in 1998? Like the taste of cherries?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Your an idiot. Seriously. I'm not perpetuating anything, merely pointing out a link on the web. I didn't qualify it.
Yeah. Sure. Putting a title on a link is not "qualifying it", especially when the title implies it stands for the world. You are the idiot, Sir.
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
You see, just to keep the right wing nut-jobs happy a market based solution was invented (one that had already worked for similar problems).
But that was based on the false idea that the right wing nut-jobs wanted a solution, so it failed.
We're probably going to get carbon taxes because of that.
Please watch the video I link to in my sig. It has a very nice man who explains to you why the right wing must get its head out of its arse as quickly as possible.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
So, when the data doesn't fit, just don't use that data. You like every other person who has tried to defend this keeps saying that the tree rings are not reliable, but it is OK to use when it gives the results you want. I am looking for an explanation that doesn't include only including the data when it shows what you want or is unverifiable while throwing away the data when it doesn't show what you want.
There doesn't appear to be one.
I was just watching Nova's "Secrets of the Sun" last night and they said 2013 was predicted to be solar max. So this agrees well with your diagram. Also, we've had at least 10 years to see the actual effects of AGP, and none of the gloom and doom seems to be panning out. Carl Sagan said extreme predictions require extreme evidence. So far, not happening, IMHO.
Yes, private discussions. Note those papers were written in the 90s and the emails in question written in the next decade.
Newtonian mechanics don't work under some conditions.
That doesn't mean that we throw them away, it just means that we only use them under the conditions where they work.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Lets have secret conclaves to hide information that has been publicly available for 10 years.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Lets have secret conclaves to hide information that has been publicly available for 10 years.
That's not the point. The point is selling one story to the public while having a different, less confident story in private. It's a degree of dishonesty.
An awful low UID for such a silly fallacy...
There is no correlation with UIDs and the capacity for intelligence. You're an idiot to even make that connection. Vainglorious twat.
Global warming is unstoppable. UNSTOPPABLE!
Strawman arguments also don't work under some conditions. That doesn't make them valid. So, at this point, no one has yet explained why the 'hide the decline' statement wasn't exactly the kind of fraud that they were accused of. All I keep hearing is that 'it wasn't fraud". They were just hiding data that didn't agree with their conclusions.
/. is not what it used to be :(
-- 29A the number of the Beast
You put it on pause? Cool! Your' my hero!!!
-- 29A the number of the Beast
No!!! It's real Science.
You forget the quadrature of Venus with Saturn in the House of Scorpio and the nefarious influence of Aquarius in the 3th House.
-- 29A the number of the Beast
Because they where discussing how to make a nice looking chart from messy data, not how to pull the wool over peoples eyes. For the most part the only people who actually reed the paper already know about the problems, if they did not a small amount of extra reeding, which they would have to do to understand the paper anyway!, would have found it immediately. "hiding" this data as a way of fooling people would be the sort of Idea I would expect from a complete idiot not a scientist or a conspirator. A five year old could tell you it is futile the data about the tree problems was released 10 years BEFORE this paper. If they where conspirators they would not have done this it would not serve there purpose, but since they were not, making the paper more readable to other people who already understand the field was more important to them.
If both Louisiana disasters have demonstrated anything, it's that as a people, we can not deal with any disasters natural, man made, or otherwise. So I posit that regardless of our personal religious beliefs....and they are religious if they are anything other than scientific...we prepare for any disaster. Let's say that global warming, a science based on mean global ocean temperatures, is real and we care that the American way of life continue in light of such a possible disaster. Wouldn't it be in our best interest to prepare? Ahead of time? And in the process increase the strength of our disaster network to handle just about any viable contingency? How is this not a great idea all around? For the people of the USA?
I supposed the 15-year pause in global warming has prompted alarmists to come up with even more extreme catastrophes.
https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/files/24219/width668/77h2y2f7-1369152857.jpg
Yes, note the pause in global warming from 2001 to 2012.
Note also the pause in global warming from 1977 to 1986. And the one between 1987 and 1996. Perhaps I should be prompted to "come up with even more extreme catastrophes" retroactively for them as well? If not, why is the current one significantly different from the other two, in that it signifies "the end of global warming" when those other two did not? For that matter, the temperature now, at 9 pm, is significantly lower than it was at noon. Does this also signify the end of global warming?
A denialist is like a guy who stops on each step of a staircase and says "Whew, I'm glad that climb is over".
Your weather may get quite a bit better. There is a good argument to be made that there are huge land masses which will benefit from warmer weather. But that's a different argument than warming isn't happening.
Not to a denialist. To a denialist, there are huge land masses which will benefit from warmer weather and warming isn't happening are both parts of a coherent theory of climate, along with the warming is slowing, the warming is natural, the warming is from the sun, there never was any warming, the warming is due to cosmic rays, it's too late to do anything about the warming, it will be cheaper to adapt to the warming, it's all a plot by Al Gore, it's all a plot by scientists, it's all a plot by people who hate America, it's all a plot by people who hate the third world, and so many more.
One of things I think the environmentalists need to do is stop classifying all this as denialism. These are different arguments.
Where is the straw?
They were just hiding data that didn't agree with their conclusions.
Writing peer-reviewed papers in published journals is a pretty poor way of "hiding data".
The data which they "hid" by telling the world about didn't "disagree with their conclusions".
Watch this Heartland Institute video
I'm guessing the GP is pointing to the trendline being downward since y2k.
If you zoom in real close, the "trendline" is going up again in the last year. BTW, how exactly is the "trendline" computed?
Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
It's just strange that human-caused global warming is apperently causing warming on Mars, too. I don't see how the CO2 is getting that far....
Where is the straw?
Newtonian mechanics don't work under some conditions. That doesn't mean that we throw them away, it just means that we only use them under the conditions where they work.
Here is what we know:
* Researchers used tree ring data as a temperature proxy in their published climate predictions.
* Researchers found that when compared to direct measurement, tree ring data does not match actual temperatures.
* Researchers continue to use tree ring data (that they now know is invalid) when it shows rising temperatures.
* Researchers drop tree ring data when it show dropping temperatures. (AKA 'hide the decline')
* Hacker breaks into researchers email and finds email that the researcher tells another researcher about selectively dropping data.
* The email clearly states the purpose of dropping the data is to change the outcome of the prediction.
* Hacker releases email to the public.
* Climate research community declares on fraud committed.
No one has explained how using data from a known bad source. You have made 3 posts in an attempt to do so and still have not given any explanation. You have stated that it is known the data is bad, Newtonian mechanics doesn't work under some situations, and that the researchers admitted that their data was bad.
Here is what we know:
* Researchers used tree ring data as a temperature proxy in their published climate predictions.
Yup
* Researchers found that when compared to direct measurement, tree ring data does not match actual temperatures.
Under some conditions, which they discussed at length in publicly published papers.
* Researchers continue to use tree ring data (that they now know is invalid) when it shows rising temperatures.
They do not know the data is invalid they know it diverges from the temperature data under certain conditions.
* Researchers drop tree ring data when it show dropping temperatures. (AKA 'hide the decline')
Researchers use the known temperature instead of a proxy when they know the temperature. They talk about this ad-nauseam.
* Hacker breaks into researchers email and finds email that the researcher tells another researcher about selectively dropping data.
That's not what he said.
* The email clearly states the purpose of dropping the data is to change the outcome of the prediction.
What prediction? It's a graph of historical temperature, not future temperature.
No one has explained how using data from a known bad source.
It's not a known bad source. It's a source that is known to only work under certain conditions. Many other sources have limits. You do know that a mercury thermometer won't work for temperatures below 234K? Does that mean mercury thermometers are a "known bad source"?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
And that makes four.
SyFy will most likely add sharks and produce a miniseries based on this . . .
Anything that gives them ideas we should be afraid of at this point.
*blink* How is it bunk? The very article you linked to acknowledged there is a pause:
Seriously, do you alarmists actually read the stuff you link to?
It appears a slight change in the planetâ(TM)s surface luster has caused its temperature to rise.
Earth CO2 has nothing to do with it. There is no mechanism in play to cause both.
Free Martian Whores!
More than you did. Do you only read the first 2 paragraphs, or are surface temperatures the only temperatures that matter to you?
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Surface temperatures are the only thing alarmists have ever used int he past, so why shouldn't we focus there? More importantly, the pause in surface temperature increase is proven. The claims of ocean temperature sinking and "well, we just haven't haven't waited long enough yet" are all suggestions and/or projections. The papers are scientists best guessing as to why surface temperatures have stopped rising -- they aren't proof as to it not occurring.. The fact you can't admit that is a shame and just shows your bias. Hell, paper #2 is labeled "Recent pause in global warming"!
Ocean temperature sinking is not a suggestion or a projection. It's an observed phenomenon and by far the largest factor mitigating surface warming. It's not a guess either. But continue to stick your head in the sand, as long as things are nice there it doesn't matter what's happening on the other side of the surface, right?
I'm glad you appear to have made a cursory reading of the entire summary page at least. It's a start.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel