Slashdot Mirror
NASA's Greenhouse Gas Observatory Captures 'First Light'
mdsolar (1045926) writes with news that NASA's second attempt to launch a satellite to map carbon dioxide levels across the globe succeeded, and its instruments are operating properly. From the article: NASA's first spacecraft dedicated to studying Earth's atmospheric climate changing carbon dioxide levels and its carbon cycle has reached its final observing orbit and taken its first science measurements as the leader of the world's first constellation of Earth science satellites known as the International 'A-Train. The Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) is a research satellite tasked with collecting the first global measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) — the leading human-produced greenhouse gas and the principal human-produced driver of climate change. The 'first light' measurements were conducted on Aug. 6 as the observatory flew over central Papua New Guinea and confirmed the health of the science instrument.
The "first light" in the summary is just the initial measurements to confirm the health of the equipment. It's not capturing some cool phenomenon. This is apparently a term of art in astronomy, according to Wikipedia.
It's like saying "the satellite booted up for the first time." Good news, but I'm going to keep my pants on.
All this money wasted on actual measurements could have gone to generating computer models with baked in hockey sticks.
It's like saying "the satellite booted up for the first time." Good news, but I'm going to keep my pants on.
Thank you.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I don't think it's climatologists who are the ones dismissing results they don't want. Actually, everyone would love to see that carbon dioxide emissions cause very little warming, but that's just not what the bulk of the data shows.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
1st attempt: launch failure when the payload fairing failed to separate
2nd attempt: launch delayed due to a faulty valve
Is someone trying to sabotage this mission?
First light is significantly more than bootup. After launch, typically at least a few days to weeks are spent doing initial power-on and checkout of various subsystems before collecting science or mission data. The initial health checks (monitoring component temperatures, voltages, currents, communications, powering on subsystems in order, etc) are much more analogous to booting up.
Once initial checks are complete, then the instrument is commanded to collect real data. That is first light. For any satellite like this which is years in the making, first light is most definitely a "cool" milestone.
Source: I work on (unrelated to this) remote sensing satellite systems and have supported at least 8 launches / early orbit testing phases over the years.
Close.
It's more like saying "now that it's been booted, and through all of its other tests, the instruments have collected their first data and been confirmed as working".
This is the first end-to-end functionality test.
CO2 levels have continued to rise rapidly over the last decade, even as actual warming has kind of flatlined,
If CO2 were a leading cause of warming, why would the temperatures not be spiking along with CO2 levels?
It's great that we are tracking CO2, but the human race seems overall far too concerned with one aspect of warming that seems not to be playing out as a dangerous factor.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
More likely scenario ... if it starts getting results confirming AGW, some congresscritter will vote to cut its funding on behalf of his 'constituents' (the oil companies).
There is a group interested in not seeing the truth here, and it isn't the climate scientists.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
That's called the temperature escalator.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Don't be ridiculous. Huge grants to institutions would be lost if it was discovered that carbon dioxide emissions cause very little warming. There's a massive amount of research grant money tied to the hypothesis for NASA and almost every other "scientific" institution on the planet. If they don't get the results they're looking for they'll "adjust" the data or "calibrate" the instruments until they show what they want NASA to show.
Just read back what you've written there. Congressman votes to cut AGW funding? Climate Scientists and their institutions don't have any interest there but oil companies do? How the hell did your tiny fucking pea-brain manage to work that one out?
This is exactly what I referred to above. When "skeptics" can't argue the issue, they dismiss the evidence they don't want by labeling it "propaganda". You can also take a look at my signature.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Cite your facts and your science, because otherwise we conclude you're doing nothing more than making an ad hominem attack on science.
Oh, wait, you don't have any facts, right?
Sorry, but if you want to be given any credibility, you need to show some science which refutes it.
Otherwise, it's the same as if I said "Pino Grigio will reject any science which doesn't fit in with his childish worldview, and nothing he says can be taken as more then the rantings of a deluded idiot".
If I had to choose between the integrity of the NASA scientists and the intelligence of your post, I'm going to have to go with NASA on this one.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
has gone up since Sputnik.
Right now, most of the world's CO2 emissions numbers are based on what gov claim that their nation consumed in coal, oil, and nat gas. Yet, it does not take into account issues such as inefficiencies, etc. Most of the numbers dealing with 3rd world and even some of the western nations are really wrong.
With this, it will show the TRUE flow of CO2 outward, as well as into, of nations.
Sadly, it will also become controversially once the far left realizes that America is NOT the massive polluter that they claim, but that instead, it will turn out that most of the 3rd world nations are some of the WORST.
BUT, where the real issue will come in, is once it shows that China produces more than 40% of the CO2, and not the 33% that is expected.
At that point, does the world finally point to China and say enough is enough, or will the far left still insist on giving them a MASSIVE out?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
bullshit. there are videos on youtube showing EXACTLY how to test CO2 capturing sunlight and converting it into heat. Reproduce those experiments, and let us know if you get different results.
Repeating a lie does not make it true.
Everything on Skeptical Science is referenced, if you have some complaint tell us what your problem is.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
yeah, climate science is where the money is.
just like the fact that they cant explain why there has been no warming for the past 17 years??
Still pushing that same old bullshit canard?
Oh noes, the idiot troll is onto our conspiracy!
Watch this Heartland Institute video
Yes, and really, really huge (many orders of magnitude bigger) amounts of profit would be lost by oil companies' shareholders if we decided to believe the absolutely overwhelming evidence that carbon dioxide causes global warming. Being a global warming scientist is a lot less lucrative than using those same skills to do just about anything else, so it's really hard to believe that job security is the motivational basis for roughly 99% of scientists who study climate change saying that we have a problem. Chances are that they just want to try to prevent their children seeing the last days of civilization and then dying painfully.
The double irony is that a lot of climate change deniers are the same people who stockpile weapons in case of the collapse of civilization. It's almost as if you bloody well want to spend your last days futilely defending the dwindling supplies in your bunker.
If that's your best argument, it sounds like you've come to the debate unarmed. Congress is notoriously hostile to climate science.
Thank you for the intelligent comment. I worked on the original instrument design at Hamilton Sundstrand over 10 years ago, and it was heartbreaking to learn of the original launch failure. A lot of us suspected but had no evidence that the failure was someone's desired outcome... now that OCO-2 is on station and collecting data we finally feel a sense of accomplishment.
And we'll not only learn who's contributing CO2 to the atmosphere, (and when, and where) but also what's consuming it, so we can not only reduce emissions but we can also sequester it better (e.g., by planting forests in the right places).
I guarantee we'll learn something we didn't expect. And scientists, being scientists, will embrace the surprises rather than reject them. This instrument will help us understand the problem better, produce better model forecasts, and plan better solutions.
I can see the fnords!
That graph pretty much shows that warming has slowed dramatically in the last dozen years. On the basis of that data, I wouldn't bet much on what the temperature will do next. Only a fool would go all in on a prediction of warming, cooling, or stability.
When that happens (and it probably will) they won't need to "lose communication;" they'll just cut funding, in line with their no-taxes pledge. Ask any Republican and they'll tell you: a faith-based weather model is worth preventing a tenth of a cent being stolen from each person's pocket. It's a matter of honor: lower taxes and strengthened alternatives to evidencism.
Sure, facts can explain that:
a) considering only the endpoints of an interval does not describe the middle of an interval
b) using an outlier as one of the endpoints of an interval makes the end-to-end comparison look more extreme than the trend would suggest.
Combining this two con consistent with either not knowing how to represent statistical data, or knowing that your audience doesn't know how to present statistical data.
So yes, that is an excellent example of the "how to lie with statistics".That is to say, the actual facts DO explain why there HAS been warming.
At that point, does the world finally point to China and say enough is enough, or will the far left still insist on giving them a MASSIVE out?
That 'out' is the best thing that we can do. If you look carefully, China is moving as fast as it can towards fast breeder reactors, hydro, etc. They're cheaper in the long-run than carbon-based energy sources and much better for their air (and ours) but the capital expense is really high. Look, nobody in Beijing is happy about breathing diesel soup for breakfast.
If you want to reduce China's available capital, you're just going to delay their cleaning up their act. Even the IPCC models count on economic development as a major source of reduction. All the "Scare Numbers" that politicians quote are based on IPCC's worst estimates based on a throttling of economic development.
Economies are dynamic, not static (sorry, Mr. Keynes, your fantasy failed). China has learned the foibles of central-planning - we should not do worse than they did.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
The launch of the spacecraft is effectively the start of 'Phase E' (operations) for the instruments ... but there's a lot of things that still have to happen:
They refer to this whole period as "commissioning". They're not always run in order (eg, for the missions to the outer planets, which might take *years* to get to, they try to check on the health of the instruments before they get to the planet). For some instruments, it might take years to validate the data.
There's also typically a press conference with the "first release" of the data, after the first calibration is done, but that's more to do with scientists on the ground than the spacecraft itself.
disclaimer : I work for a NASA center, but I don't deal with spacecraft directly; I just manage the data after it's downlinked & processed.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
not in climate but in other topics it has been done before by the government. Just look at the research done by the NIH on marijuana in the 70s, the study showed that marijuana was not harmful. what happened? the study was buried and no more studies were allowed to be done for wuite some time. His theory that if the government doesnt get the results it wants that it would cover it up are not unfounded.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
roughly 99% of scientists who study climate change saying that we have a problem
if you are going to make a claim about something, get the claim right at least. 99% of scientists not NOT believe that there is a problem, no where is that stat ever said except for in blogs and bad reporting.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
... everyone would love to see that carbon dioxide emissions cause very little warming, but that's just not what the bulk of the data shows.
I followed your link and there is no data there. All there is there is talk of computer models. Computer models are not data - they simply output numbers that the "programmer" wanted them to output.
Show me cause and effect data. Follow the scientific principal. Or doesn't that apply here?
I release as much CO2 as I can.
You might be misunderstanding the difference between short-term forecasts and longterm projections. I know I failed to understand the scientific nuance until recently.
You see, "global average temperatures are going to rise X by 2100" is a projection. It's based on pretty basic thermodynamics (ie. this much carbon increases the greenhouse effect by such-and-such). This science, because it's so basic, is pretty solid.
At the same time "global average temperatures are going to rise by Y by 2025" is a forecast. It's based on computer models that are perpetually being refined to more accurately predict the short-term trend. Most recently, these models were found to be missing el-nino/la-nina cycles which is why they have lagged over the last decade.
This is why people get confused when I tell them the science of global warming is actually extremely basic. It's just thermodynamics, but then they confuse projections with forecasts and wonder why the models haven't accurately predicted the last 10 years. It's the "weather versus climate" debate all over again.
Why do scientists even publish forecasts when they know they are still very much a work in progress? Politics. You see, your local representative couldn't give a damn if your children's children suffer from today's lack of leadership a century from now. So scientists are tasked to find out what the short-term effect will be on the constituency to inform politicians whether or not they might suffer some voter backlash on the issue.
In other words, our children's children are doomed to shell out billions to fix this mess.
i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
The double irony is that a lot of climate change deniers are the same people who stockpile weapons in case of the collapse of civilization. It's almost as if you bloody well want to spend your last days futilely defending the dwindling supplies in your bunker.
In fact, I think that is part of the problem. The religious right seems to believe that the end of days is upon us so they're just going to bunker down and hold the fort until Jesus comes to save us. They don't want to accept climate change because doing so might require them to do something about it, which is a pointless exercise in their mind (and highly damaging to their standard of living). If God wants the planet to burn, it's going to burn and only God can save us. The guns are there to protect them from the godless masses until their day of vindication comes.
Thank you for the work. I worked on Mars Global Surveyor and Suspect that I had the same feeling when we lost MGS
And yeah, when OCS's shroud failed to release, I was miffed, but far more miffed when they got the next contract for OCO2. Thank god that it was turned over to ULA. Oddly, not sure if you have noticed, but 100% of OCS's failures were earth sats. That has always struck me as interesting.
But, I suspect that when the initial batch of numbers come from OCO2, that it is going to drive a lot of politicians crazy. We continue to focus just on America, when I THINK that we contribute only about 13-15% of total. The idea that so many focus on stopping America, while ignoring China and their constant growth in CO2 is just amazing to me. In fact, it is scary. There is a real lack of logic by both the far right and left WRT to this issue and others like it.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
No, China is NOT moving as fast as possible. They could stop producing new coal plants and buy nuke plants that are produced in America. However, that is EXACTLY what they are avoiding. Chinese leaders do NOT care about the lead, mercury, CO2, etc that they dump into the air and water. What they care about is holding on to power, while winning the cold war that they have with the west.
China claimed that they were going to spend 100's of billions on doing Solar and Wind for China, BUT, for the amount that they put in, the Chinese gov would have been paying 10x what America paid for our solar/wind. Basically, that money went not into developing China's AE programs, but about destroying companies in Germany, Japan, and America.
We NEVER should have given them a single thing about thorium plants. That will come back to haunt us.
And as to the Chinese economics, they are still a centrally planned system. The only parts that are really free market are companies that export to the west. However, to work there, you have to have gov. permission. Otherwise, the gov still tells you where you will work and what you will earn.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Can't you understand this basic argument? What are the incentives here? Are climate scientists and institutions incentivised to support the hypothesis or not? And if they are (which of course they are), how is that any different to oil companies being incentivised against it? Is there another planet somewhere where the climate scientists are robots with absolutely no interest in their careers, tenure, professorships and the various career development opportunities that may be contingent on their ability to publish and attract grant funding to their institutions?
Science is corrupt. It progresses one funeral at a time.
And, when the guilty (China, India) are identified, what would be your plan? Talk them to death? (Obama) Nuke them? (Bush) Recognize Hamas? (Carter)
The problem is that China and India will tell the west to fuck off, pleading poverty. So, do the western democracies destroy their own economies and national defences pursuing policies that will make not one whit of difference when China and India build fifty coal plants per year? Please enlighten us poor, benighted proles.
I suppose you think that NASA can bend objective reality to their will as well. In science, particularly a physical science like climate you can maybe get away with fudging things for a little while but sooner or later (usually sooner) objective reality will destroy your fudging.
He said "scientist who study climate change". You can't find even 5% of that group that says there is no problem
In 1896 Svante Arrhenius said "if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression." Expressed as a formula (and working with Slashdot's font limitations) that is:
(delta)Temperature=(alpha)Ln(C/C(subzero))
Where (alpha) is a constant between 5 and 7 and C is the concentration of CO2 and C(subzero) is the original concentration. That relation still holds and can be verified in the laboratory. In the atmosphere there are complications from interactions with other factors which is what models help us explore but the basic relationship between CO2 concentrations and temperature still exists.
Sadly, it will also become controversially once the far left realizes that America is NOT the massive polluter that they claim, but that instead, it will turn out that most of the 3rd world nations are some of the WORST.
You seem to be assuming something that couldn't be measured till now. Maybe you're right and maybe you're wrong. BUT you're probably not even framing the question right. If American companies are contracting 3rd world nations to make products or product components, that are then consumed in America, then that CO2 should rightly be assigned to America, not the 3rd world countries.
That's not "a massive out". That's just rather more sophisticated thinking.
n the basis of that data, I wouldn't bet much on what the temperature will do next. Only a fool would go all in on a prediction of warming, cooling, or stability.
So the warming could in fact be much worse than what the models predict? Talk about your doom and gloom.
Actually, with america not able to directly control what a nation does, it is neither fair nor sophisticated. In fact, it is akin to telling a rape victim that s?he owes their rapist for services rendered.
Instead, we should put an increasing tax on all goods based on where the parts come from. In addition, the normalization should be co2 / $GDP. With this approach nations like India which actually has a low emission / $GDP will have a lower to none existent tax, while nations / states such as China, or wyoming , america, will have high tax unless they change their way.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You can throw all of the incentives you want at scientists but in the end they still have to reflect the objective reality they are studying. In the end the value of what they produce will be judged against that and only that.
Giving it a label doesn't mean it exists. Note that climate models don't predict a "temperature escalator". And the graph in question only goes back to 1970 which happens to be a local minimum.
The scientists were about evenly divided on whether they thought the effects of global climate change over the next 50 to 100 years were likely to be near catastrophic (41 percent) or moderately dangerous (44 percent). About 13 percent saw relatively little danger.
While this is a group of knowledgeable outsiders, it's a group of knowledgeable outsiders with somewhat less conflict of interest than those who study "climate change".
Your cited article was from 2008. It would be interesting to see how the results reported by that poll have changed in the ensuing 6 years. The poll was conducted among geologists and meteorologists, most of whom were not directly studying climate so it doesn't really negate my point. And finally 41 percent plus 44 percent means that 85 percent of them thought there will be problems from global warming. I don't know about you but for me in most cases if 85% of scientists agree to some extent about something I'm going to listen.
Move your endpoint forward a few years beyond the 1998 el-nino, and the OLS fit is still flat or at best trending much much less than anticipated, depending on what data set you use. Fact is, even with most generous pro-warming interpretation of the data, you must concede that the data clearly indicates that it is, at best, not warming nearly as much as predicted.
The conversation has largely moved on. There is now lots of conversation on explaining why the pause, as opposed to previous conversation which was along the lines of that there is no pause. The pause is real and merits an explanation.
Getting back to the SKS escalator infographic. Although it is quite a clever piece of polemic, it is at heart just a dumb strawman argument and infers a point of view which is not, nor ever was articulated by any CAGW skeptic that I am aware of.
just like the fact that they cant explain why there has been no warming for the past 17 years??
Still pushing that same old bullshit canard?
Keep modding me troll, deniers. Keep on suppressing discussion. Whatever; you're helping destroy the world.
What has changed in six years aside from a modest amount of backtracking by the IPCC?
Problem is, when I look at your signature, I see one comma too many.
Not that I'm disagreeing with your statements re "skeptics" and "propoganda"
You might want to read the science on that skippy, the claim is that the oceans are ABSORBING HEAT.
This is exactly why the global warming debate is so absurd, the people who claim they are on the science are not using science, but fear and calling that science.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Maybe so although I'd call it refinement rather than backtracking. But you're still left with 85% of the scientists in the survey who consider it moderately dangerous to catastrophic.
You're forgetting that "truth" has a half-life and that group-think dominates the process from bottom to top.
So when they see CO2 rise, how do they know it's due to "human-produced greenhouse gas" vs. natural events? It won't matter because the leftist, controlling gov't is out to put more restrictions on freedoms, not prove any science. And who's to say that the temperatures that we see today are the "norm", or are too hot, or too cool? Like most things, it's all about the money, just follow the trail. Either it's "researchers" looking for more funding dollars, or the gov't looking to tax something so it can get more money. Pretty clear really.
And heaven forbid if the CO2 fall. They've already tried to "explain" the colder temperature due to something about the oceans absorbing gasses.
Although it is quite a clever piece of polemic, it is at heart just a dumb strawman argument and infers a point of view which is not, nor ever was articulated by any CAGW skeptic that I am aware of.
Well you just made one of the arguments that the graph dispells: "The pause is real and merits an explanation", so presumably you know at least one such person. Case in point one of the many points the graph addresses it easy to choose many different periods and say "there is no trend for this period" and confuse that with "there is no trend". In fact, you can pretty much cover the entire temperature record with cherry-picked periods that show no statistically significant warming despite the obvious historical warming trend when you look at forest and not just the trees.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
It's not a matter of TRUTH. It's a matter of objective reality. If scientists are deliberately skewing their results it shouldn't be that hard to show they are wrong, yet it hasn't happened.
That's fascinating riverat1. Truly fascinating. What you're talking about is the ideal world of scientific inquiry and publishing in your head, not the corrupt world of scientific inquiry and publishing that exists in the real world.
Regarding the temperature escalator, skeptical science accuses 'skeptiks' of cherry picking results to show cooling over particular decades and of not seeing the bigger picture.
Funny then, that in their example they cherry pick the last 30 years worth if data. When one looks at the bigger picture, ie a graph going back a couple of millennia, it's really not a problem.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/2000-years-of-global-temperatures/
Experience working with graphs has taught me they go up and down, then up again.
Which skeptical science referenced fact would you like me to debunk next?
It fascinating to me that you think that scientists would think they could get away with ignoring objective reality and still maintain their credibility.
either way even with that number 85% != 99%
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
In fact, it is akin to telling a rape victim that s?he owes their rapist for services rendered.
Huh? Consumers are choosing to consume. The companies that outsource to other countries are doing so knowingly. Increased CO2 is an inevitable outcome. How is that in any way like rape?
Instead, we should put an increasing tax on all goods based on where the parts come from. In addition, the normalization should be co2 / $GDP.
So richer countries are allowed to pollute more than poorer countries? How very unfair.
The pause is a real physical phenomena which the climatology community is now trying to explain, this is now broadly accepted and is not a fringe skeptic position as you seem to insist on trying to frame it. Even in IPCC AR5 Report deals with it. WG1 Chapter 9 for example: "Box 9.2: Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the past 15 years". Download it and read it for yourself. This section in the report posits a number of broad explanations, statistical artefact is not one of them.
Let me elaborate further on why the SKS graph is a strawman, I assumed my initial comment would be obvious and sufficient. Anyway it is because most cogent skeptics do not dispute that the world was warmed in the 20th century, that warming post 1970 was quite pronounced and that co2 does have a warming effect; these observations are not controversial. The SKS graph implies that skeptics wilfully ignore the observed warming. It is a stupid lie vigorously repudiated, and by virtue of this that SKS continue to publish it makes them wilful liars, wilfully misrepresenting the point of view of their detractors.
In the poll that came up with 85% only 41% of the scientists polled had ever published anything on climate so it makes sense that they wouldn't get the same results as polling only climate scientists.
Let me elaborate further on why the SKS graph is a strawman, I assumed my initial comment would be obvious and sufficient. Anyway it is because most cogent skeptics do not dispute that the world was warmed in the 20th century, that warming post 1970 was quite pronounced and that co2 does have a warming effect; these observations are not controversial. The SKS graph implies that skeptics wilfully ignore the observed warming. It is a stupid lie vigorously repudiated, and by virtue of this that SKS continue to publish it makes them wilful liars, wilfully misrepresenting the point of view of their detractors.
Methinks thou dost protest too much.
Seriously, there are, in fact, many "skeptics", cogent or otherwise who dispute that the world has warmed and that CO2 does have a warming effect. For example, Jane Q. Public is a good example of self-professed skeptic on Slashdot who apparently does not believe that CO2 has a warming effect. She has several times posted "proof" that the greenhouse effect can not exist. And she is not alone, I've replied to dozens of posts from many different posters on Slashdot who claimed for various reasons that global warming does not exist. I really couldn't tell you how many more I've read and not responded but it's probably in the hundreds.
The SKS graph does not imply that "skeptics" wilfully ignore the observed warming, it simply shows why "the pause" doesn't matter in the big picture. It's happened before and will happen again, and the underlying trend continues. Frankly, you don't seem to understand that you are doing exactly what that graphs shows is wrong.
Frankly, the argument that the IPCC report deals with "the Hiatus" makes is significant is a non-starter. The IPCC report deals with because it deals with practically everything related to climate change and endless talking heads in the media have made it a significant issue which had to be addressed. To quote from the box you referenced:
and
and
So yes, the slowdown is real and sure, it should be explained, and not surprisingly, it already has been. The point you don't seem to understand is that arguments about the slowed warming are nothing but a sideshow. Every time we hit a new high temperature we start a new round of "it hasn't warmed since the last time we broke a record". It's tiresome and pointless. That's what the graph is really about, and why you don't like it. You don't like it because it shows clearly why (at least some of) your arguments are vapid.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Yes, plenty of whacky ideas out there and including some skeptics that think co2 cannot warm the planet, i.e. Sky dragon's. We are united in our belief that such views are almost certainly incorrect.
I guess it is easier to focus on the the fringe argument and try and represent all skeptics as being one and the same than confront lukewarmer arguments, which are becoming increasingly uncomfortable in light of actual observational data.
CAGW predicted rapid and accelerating warming. But the data fails to bear it out, so post-hoc rationalisations are put forth and the capacity of the hypothesis to yield falsifiability tests is shrinking : which urges the question is the development of this hypothesis robust?
Your comment " Every time we hit a new high temperature", is with respect absurd particularly given admonishments about dodgy statistics in this thread and the OP. Temp data is highly variable and auto-correlated. New high records is not special with such data and it cannot be meaningfully interpreted. Previously the message was focus on the trend, but the trend is failing to provide the correct narrative so the focus now is on 'records'. I bet you cannot even meaningfully say how many records would be considered normal and how many would be alarming. An interesting null would be to compare # high temp records against # of low temp records. I actually did that with a subset of data (Australia), last summer. There was only marginally more hi temp records than low temp, and depending on how I processed the data I could actually yield counts of low temp data that was higher, yet headlines were along lines of: OMG! So many hi temperature records! Counting records are meaningless in any sort of objective qualitative analysis, and only counting one type of record with such data is just all sorts of wrong.
CAGW predicted rapid and accelerating warming. But the data fails to bear it out, so post-hoc rationalisations are put forth and the capacity of the hypothesis to yield falsifiability tests is shrinking : which urges the question is the development of this hypothesis robust?
Speaking of fallacies, the use of CAGW is generally associated with a strawman, goalpost moving or loaded language fallacies, depending on context. It's use is rarely associated with honest debate because there is no actual definition for CAGW.
CO2 emission records are actually what predicts accelerating warming, if C02 is a greenhouse gas and we increase the rate at which we're releasing CO2 into the air, we increase the speed at which the planet warms. And rapid is at best a relative term when applied to changes that are far too slow for human senses to observe.
Your comment " Every time we hit a new high temperature", is with respect absurd particularly given admonishments about dodgy statistics in this thread and the OP.
My comment was about the cyclical nature of some "skeptic" arguments. There is always a previous record high which we almost always below, thus the argument can always be made that there has been "no warming" for some time period. The argument goes out of style for a bit after a new record high has been set, but give it a year or two and it comes back into fashion until the next record high is set. The comment had nothing to do with presenting actual evidence of global warming.
An interesting null would be to compare # high temp records against # of low temp records.
It is interesting and has been done. According to that paper, the split for 2001-2011 temperature anomalies was about 85% high to 15% low. According to Skeptical Science, the records were split 67% high to 33% low over 1999-2009.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Speaking of fallacies, the use of CAGW is generally associated with a strawman, goalpost moving or loaded language fallacies, depending on context.
Nice try, but no. CAGW = Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and it describes the point of view of alarmism on climate quite well. When public narrative out there uses terms like 'greatest moral challenge of our time', and slogans like 'no jobs on a dead planet', the inference is quite clear : the proponents of such points of view are clearly advocating that a global catastrophe is looming. There is an appalling barefaced hypocrisy in an article that takes um-bridge with the term CAGW, which I assert is not emotive, but factual : AGW that is bad enough to be catastrophic which is a valid hypothesis and a point of view held by many, yet willy-nilly throws the term 'denier' around. Some real class and intellectually meticulous conduct on display there.
My comment was about the cyclical nature of some "skeptic" arguments.
Maybe you can actually reference skeptics how have done this, flip-flopped on data sets, doesn't change the fact that warming is not as much as projected. And you yourself keep changing your argument without explaining why you are abandoning your prior argument, first it was all statistical quackery, then it's not a big deal this slowdown, and now you are trying the 'a good defence is an offence' strategy by asserting skeptics are cyclical and selective in their datasets, when this is exactly what alarmists are doing by abandoning discussion of trends in favour of discussing instances where Tmax records are being set.
It is interesting and has been done.
Yeah that is interesting, the NASA link though is more about how the histogram of anomalies is trending decade to decade, I assume it is yearly or seasonally adjusted anomalies here, not daily Tmin Tmax records, but it shows a growing fat tail anomaly which does support overall higher likelyhood of max temps. SKS link is as trustworthy as SKS always is (as in not at all). My original point is that record counts in a period of a pause after a period of warming is normal outcome for variable highly autocorrelated data. It does not invalidate the observation of a pause. It is actually consistent with it. The concluding point is that counting record events simply isn't a robust mechanism for qualitative analysis. When some skeptics make a big deal out of record winter lows, they are shouted down, and rightly so and they are shouted down by skeptics too. But presumably reporting on Tmax records and saying to paraphrase : "on-noes is the global warming!", is perfectly fine. Presumably. Actually... no.... it isn't okay.
To truly see the trend look back 1000 years not just 40 years. Pauses over a decade are insignificant, I agree. But if you are talking about long term trends look back 1-2 thousand years and you will see that the recent warming is also not as significant as you thought
Giving it a label doesn't mean it exists. Note that climate models don't predict a "temperature escalator".
Yes they do.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
that's not a fact.
that's a myth.
it is a myth, or more accurately a LIE, that there has been "no warming" for the past 17 years.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I see. So debunking the most popular myths and misconceptions of the science, using actual science, from actual scientists...is propoganda?
Fraid not. You can't just cover your hears and "lalalalalalalalala" the science away.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
you didnt debunk anything.
you just linked to another faulty denier site that has itself been proven wrong, and an article that trots out the same "warm period and "little ice age" misconceptions.
Roy Spencer is not a valid source.
Tree ring reliability: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):
The divergence problem is a physical phenomenon - tree growth has slowed or declined in the last few decades, mostly in high northern latitudes. The divergence problem is unprecedented, unique to the last few decades, indicating its cause may be anthropogenic. The cause is likely to be a combination of local and global factors such as warming-induced drought and global dimming. Tree-ring proxy reconstructions are reliable before 1960, tracking closely with the instrumental record and other independent proxies.
Medieval Warm Period: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ) AND ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):
The Medieval Warm Period predominantly affected the North Atlantic and Europe, not the whole world. While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.
The Little Ice Age: ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ) AND ( http://www.skepticalscience.co... ):
The sceptical argument that current warming is a continuation of the same warming that ended the LIA is unlikely. There is a lack of evidence for a suitable forcing (e.g. the sun) and numerous correlations with known natural forcings that can account for the LIA itself, and the subsequent climate recovery. Taken in isolation, the LIA might cast doubt on the theory of climate change. Considered alongside the empirical evidence, model predictions and a century of scientific research into the climate, recovery from the LIA is not a plausible theory to explain the observed evidence and rate of global climate change.
As for Roy Spencer himself: ...a conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists, and perfect secrecy...
-He believes in the "global scientific conspiracy"
-He believes that they lie to make money off research grants" myths....cause theres just so much money to be made that way...as opposed to being on the payroll of a big oil company, like him.
-Oh, and he also believes that GW cant be happening....because God.
So ya...that's a "wonderful" source you have there.
http://www.desmogblog.com/roy-...
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014...
http://thinkprogress.org/clima...
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/R...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
dear god, you keep saying the exact opposite of reality. each and every time this topic comes up.
the models do in fact predict both previously observations, and as each new set of observations come in, they have continued to fall within the predictions.
the graphs go back far further than that, and no, 1970 was not some local minimum.
one would almost think that you're not simply a troll, but a professional troll.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
they've infested slashdot.
they talk about the evils and conspiracys of science, proclaim trusting experts isnt valid, that non-experts have equally valid opinions...and when you point out the problems, or how they ignore reality and history, and how the gilded age wasnt a utopia, or talk about actual science and actual observations...they mod you as troll and flamebait.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
so you're pushing the old "rich scientists" myth?
You know its BS right?
As in false, made up, not true?
In fact, it's actually a projection, because the REAL money to be made in global warming is in DENYING it.
Well you should.
Come back to reality.
It's not just more rational, it's nicer over here too.
And we have cookies.
To sum up: climate research doesn't pay well, the amount of money dedicated to it has been shrinking, and if the researchers were successful in convincing the public that climate change was a serious threat, the response would be to give money to someone else. If you come across someone arguing that scientists are in it for the money, then you can probably assume they are willing to make arguments without getting their facts straight.
http://arstechnica.com/science...
http://www.scientificamerican....
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
you keep saying the exact opposite of reality
I'm not the one confusing unsubstantiated computer models with reality.
and no, 1970 was not some local minimum
I looked before I posted.
Nice try, but no. CAGW = Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming and it describes the point of view of alarmism on climate quite well.
There is no formal definition of what CAGW is, you could even stick to one definition for a single sentence, you used two very different examples of what it supposedly means. All in all, it's useful rhetorical trickery used to make sure you never have to deal honestly with people you disagree with. You always just one goalpost shift away from continuing the argument.
When public narrative out there uses terms like 'greatest moral challenge of our time',
Dealing with AGW may, in fact, be the "greatest moral challenge of our time" but that has nothing to do with your argument. It's a moral question of doing nothing now so we benefit at the cost of our inheritors, or take minor inconvenient actions now and pass the savings on to those who come after us. The cost of dealing with AGW adaptation and mitigation rises the more we delay on taking action. In addition, the atmosphere is a global commons, and dumping CO2 into it is a mostly invisible action. Can the world work together to achieve a universally beneficial goal when it's so easy to cheat the system?
You are free of course to disagree with that assessment, but my simply point is that phrase "greatest moral challenge of our time" does not need to imply that there a catastrophe lurking around the corner, perhaps you have confused it with "greatest mortal challenge of our time" which would indeed imply an incoming catastrophe.
and slogans like 'no jobs on a dead planet',
On the other hand "no jobs on a dead planet" is a union slogan, and slogans are often hyperbolic. It is a catchy phrase that clearly communicates the point that job concerns and environmental concerns are not mutually exclusive. It is possible that I am projecting my own views onto such groups, but until you mentioned it, I had never heard that particular slogan before.
Maybe you can actually reference skeptics how have done this, flip-flopped on data sets, doesn't change the fact that warming is not as much as projected. And you yourself keep changing your argument without explaining why you are abandoning your prior argument, first it was all statistical quackery, then it's not a big deal this slowdown, and now you are trying the 'a good defence is an offence' strategy by asserting skeptics are cyclical and selective in their datasets, when this is exactly what alarmists are doing by abandoning discussion of trends in favour of discussing instances where Tmax records are being set.
I have not changed or abandoned any of my previous arguments. It is statistical quackery, while atmospheric temperatures are rising slower than projected, those slower periods are common and expected. The quackery is in pretending that this is new and unprecedented and in choosing start and end dates to exaggerate the length of the period. Furthermore, the escalator graph clearly shows how if you followed the behaviour of these self-proclaimed skeptics you could always claim we are in a slow warming, no warming or cooling trend even while the temperature steadily rises. This is expected because the data is noisy and not monotonic. In every non-record year there is a previous higher record year, the slope from that year to any year except the next record setting year will always be below 0. This is simple mathematics and it is critically important to understanding how you are being manipulated. The current "no warming" rhetoric which you occasionally use is no different from the obviously incorrect use that could have been applied to any similar period in the past. Maybe you haven't been following my arguments as closely as you think you have?
Yeah that is interesting, the NASA link though is more about how the histogram of anomalies is trending decade to decade, I assume it is yearly o
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Right now, most of the world's CO2 emissions numbers are based on what gov claim that their nation consumed in coal, oil, and nat gas. Yet, it does not take into account issues such as inefficiencies, etc. Most of the numbers dealing with 3rd world and even some of the western nations are really wrong.
Well, no.
The emissions numbers are based on two powerful mathematical and physical principles known as "double entry bookeeping" and "consevation of mass-energy". Any "inefficiencies" would result in the emission of less CO2
Watch this Heartland Institute video