Slashdot Mirror
NOAA: Global Warming 'Pause' Never Happened
Taco Cowboy writes: The whole global warming debate is as confusing as ever. Researchers from the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have published a new study in Science saying there was no "pause" in global warming. Dr. Thomas Karl points out that the warming rate over the past 15 years is "virtually identical" to warming over the last century, and updated observations show temperatures did not plateau.
"The idea of a global warming 'hiatus' arose from questions over why the trend of warming temperatures appeared to be stalling recently compared to the later part of the 20th century. ... The new analysis corrects for ocean observations made using different methods as well as including new data on surface temperatures."
"According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global average temperatures have increased by around 0.05C per decade in the period between 1998 and 2012. This compares with an average of 0.12 per decade between 1951 and 2012. The new analysis suggests a figure of 0.116 per decade for 2000-2014, compared with 0.113 for 1950-1999."
"The idea of a global warming 'hiatus' arose from questions over why the trend of warming temperatures appeared to be stalling recently compared to the later part of the 20th century. ... The new analysis corrects for ocean observations made using different methods as well as including new data on surface temperatures."
"According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global average temperatures have increased by around 0.05C per decade in the period between 1998 and 2012. This compares with an average of 0.12 per decade between 1951 and 2012. The new analysis suggests a figure of 0.116 per decade for 2000-2014, compared with 0.113 for 1950-1999."
Orkney exports a good wine.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
A member of Congress throwing a snowball is so much better an argument than any science.
we will take out what we don't like and put it what fits our agenda.
The big difference between the Church of Global Warming and whatever kook cult is predicting the Rapture for next Tuesday is this: When the Rapture doesn't actually happen, at least the kooks admit that it didn't happen. The warmists just say that it did happen by changing the past data to fit their conclusions.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
For the past decade or two I have been paying ever higher environmental taxes and levies. If the pause doesn't exist and the temperatures continue to rise at exactly the same levels as before, then I want my money back!
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
It makes perfect sense, I mean this is probably the main argument against, so why not massage it out of the data?
I worked with the group who built and operated the optical sensor which discovered the hole in the ozone. Except that they didn't know they had. Every time the sensor took optical data over the poles there was an "anomaly" in the data and they got uncharacteristically low numbers. For three years, this was written off as an unexplained anomaly when viewing down towards the polar ice. Until they looked up from below and found out that there really was no ozone there. Going back to the old data resulted in a fairly large change to the interpretation of the existing data which had been thrown out as unexplained.
Science learns as it goes.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Yawn. It's too late to do anything about it anyway. You might as well sit back and enjoy it. Unless we start a geoengineering project to remove CO2 from the atmosphere (and who's going to pay for that?) it'll be a thousand years before levels return to normal, *assuming* we cut emissions to zero right now, which will never happen. We could put giant mirrors in space to cool the Earth, but who wants to do that? I like the heat, and since we were due for another ice age, I personally would rather not have New York State under a kilometer of ice.
The new analysis corrects for ocean observations made using different methods as well as including new data on surface temperatures.
"We're still massaging the data to make it look the way that fits our pre-conceived notions. STATISTICS!!"
Climate change story is a sign the weekend is finally here.
I thought this excess heat from the 'haitus' has been hiding at the bottom of the ocean ( because heat sinks, as everybody knows ).
Has this been debunked then?
The new "analysis" deliberately tampered with data for this very purpose:
New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.
When the data ceases to match the model, why is it that global warming agenda pushers always say that it is the model that is wrong and change the model? Instead of questioning at their underlying assumptions, as the scientific method dictates? Oh, because then they don't get to push their agenda to get more money. CAPTCHA: Idealism
1) Notice that a lot of the ocean temperatures are now collected by buoys
2) Notice that older temperatures were mostly collected by ships, and trended slightly warmer than the buoy measurements
3) Assume that the actual temperature is somewhere in between (instead of using the more-accurate buoy numbers)
4) Adjust the ship temperature numbers down (cooling the past record by a fraction of a degree)
5) Adjust the buoy temperature numbers up (warming the current temps by a fraction of a degree)
6) Voila! The pause disappeared!
(In ocean temps. If you ignore all of the other things like satellite measurements that don't agree.)
Oh and btw when you say corrects for ocean data from different sources, you mean adjusts sea buoy data upward to agree ship based sensor data.
There have been some accusations that the data is being 'massaged' to get to a specific result:
https://stevengoddard.wordpres...
-Styopa
While I personally believe in man-made global warming, this sort of thing makes it hard to argue with someone who claims the researchers are just massaging the data until it shows what they think it should show.
They went back and deliberately reweighed the numbers and yet people still think this is "science"? it is politics.
2015 was the hottest year on record! that is a fact! .02 degrees hotter than the next hottest year. That is a scientific fact. Not sure what the margin of error was, no one ever reports that, but .02 degrees is hot hot hot I tell you. That may be a fact, not sure.
It never happened, because we used different measurement techniques for that 15 year period to "prove" it. What a scam.
There has been a debate over how to model cosmic plasmas (such as the solar wind) for more than half a century between the Astrophysical Journal and IEEE's Transactions on Plasma Science.
Conventional theory models this flow of charged particles fundamentally as a fluid, but these models have been in dispute since their inception.
Electric joule heating stems from the idea that these moving charges are an electric current, and advocates point to the fact that the solar wind is oftentimes guided by planetary magnetic fields into the poles.
The presence of hot spots at the poles of Enceladus, Neptune and Venus, in particular, are suggestive of the simple idea that these moving charged particles can heat up the planets.
It was noted in 2005 by NASA that Mars' ice caps had also been diminishing for three summers in a row.
Pluto has continued to warm up even as it moves away from the Sun.
Many atmospheric circulation models are unable to reproduce the observed polar stratospheric winds (aka the polar vortex).
The observed splitting of the polar vortex on both Earth and Venus is an expected feature of laboratory plasmas when they are conducting electrical currents, yet climate and planetary scientists claim to not understand either observation.
The solar wind intensity correlates with lightning strikes, raising questions about lightning's underlying cause, and suggesting that the Earth is part of a larger electrical circuit.
Sunspot numbers appear to correlate with lower stratosphere temperature anomalies, minus the temporal effects of volcanic eruptions -- suggesting that the sunspots are related to these electrical flows. Laboratory plasma terrella experiments appear to confirm this suspicion.
Electric field variability can significantly increase the amount of Joule heating, yet existing general circulation models assume a smooth field in both space and time. In other words, the current climate models do not take electric joule heating into account.
The primitive equations which are used to model atmospheric flows basically ignore charge change phenomena.
This will likely turn out to be a mistake.
For a more graphical presentation w/ the sources for these claims, see https://plus.google.com/108466...
Because it doesn't show the results we WANT.
If the data shows humanity isn't harming the environment, WHY THE HELL ISN'T THAT A GOOD THING?
Keep working guys, eventually you'll get the answer you want. It isn't good when a government agency cannot be trusted. NOAA is hopelessly diseased and corrupt, as is EPA, IRS, Justice Department, Federal Courts. Defund them.
If you can't see this coming, you are blind. Of course Asia gets a pass on covering costs.
This is the unfortunate thing of science reporting; the scientific process is misunderstood by laypeople. And as a result, folks start assuming that the scientific community doesn't have a clue or are making shit up to get grants. Now, I am perfectly aware of the problems of publication bias and other criticisms of the process but the study of global warming is so widespread and a concern of so many parties - some of which will lose big and possibly gain big - that any shenanigans would be eliminated from the scientific process or at the very least pushed aside to the fringes.
As far as shenanigans are concerned, it's all in the general media and by people who are completely unqualified to make any sort of educated contribution.
BOth can happen. BUt the model has been pretty good to date and in reviewing it they found some things in those data which were not consistent and so was normalized and they also had new data which supported the model. Hence there is no evidence to which shows the fundamental facts and assumptions are wrong. There is no evidence to discard underlying assumptions such as Thermodynamics works as expected when investigating the climate.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
If the planet was emerging from an ice age, meaning there would be variations in temperature, CO2, and dust from the Vostok ice core over the last 400,000 years, couldn't global warming be a natural occurrence, having nothing to do with mankind's addition to CO2 gases from carbon fuels?
This latest attempt to shore up the crumbling global warming agenda is another obvious attempt to manipulate the data and create momentum for the Paris meeting later this year.
This new study (or mangling the data to get the conclusion you want) is full of holes.
They have extrapolated land temps to sea areas where no data exists.
They have adjusted (the favorite warmists method, warm new temperature while adjusting old temperature data down to create a trend) sea surface temperatures to agree with a less reliable data set instead of the other way around.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/a-first-look-at-possible-artifacts-of-data-biases-in-the-recent-global-surface-warming-hiatus-by-karl-et-al-science-4-june-2015/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/04/noaas-new-paper-is-there-no-global-warming-hiatus-after-all/
are two critiques of this tendentiously timed data mangling.
Indeed, our best temperature data in the USA (I know, not the whole world) the USCRN (US climate reference network) uses triple redundant aspirated platinum temp sensors in pristine rural locations. It has been operating for >10 years, and shows NO warming at all. This data is not adjusted like so much of the surface record.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/07/noaa-shows-the-pause-in-the-u-s-surface-temperature-record-over-nearly-a-decade/
The satellite temp record (also with no hokey adjustments to create warming like GISS) also shows NO warming for the past 15-20 years.
So, this new data mangling is just another last ditch attempt to ram through the UNIPCC agenda, of controlling the energy infrastructure of the world for a green socialist fantasy.
Let's look at the argument in reverse: If the planet is naturally warming, and mankind had nothing to do with it, then that means mankind is due for an extinction level event due to the warming in about 2 centuries, as all the potable water will be gone and so will all the farmable land.
Problem with politicians is that they don't really give a care about their children or grandchildren. They only care that either they live long enough that it was worth the screwing them over. Churchie Joes however think the rapture is around the corner and will do anything they can think of to bring about it's coming. So in a sense telling the Churchie Joes that we're all gonna die in 200 years if we keep popping babies out at the rate we do now, means they will just double their baby popping rate.
What everyone else should do is start building the Ark (again?) to find another planet to live on, because everyone is going to die when the water boils off.
This scientific conclusion here is that the 2 decade pause does not exist and we just need to adjust the data to make it appear. They proved it by using only surface data which is the same data NOAA has been tempering with from day 1.
I'm skeptical NOT because I don’t think it’s possible humans are causing warming, I’m skeptical because I have doubts about the data. I have doubts about the sincerity, the honesty, the legitimacy of some of the science behind the data. There’s too much politics involved and too much money involved going to global warming advocates and scientists, and they will do anything it seems to justify there theory that global warming exists.
Why would anyone trust a system where the raw data is not made public AND the justifications for changing it are not made public.That's politics, not science.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."
Algor means "cooling" in Latin.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Therefore...checkmate.
sine puella vita suget
Q: Should we be actively engaged in protecting our environment
A: Yes
Q: Has mankind contributed to the degradation of our environment
A: Yes
Q: Are we the largest cause of Global Warming
A: Not really certain, possibly
Q: Can we do anything to halt or slow down the damage we are doing
A: Yes
Q: Should we
A: Yes
Well, what should we do vs what can we do becomes the biggest question. There are a number of things that reasonable people can agree upon that will have an impact. Everything from the individual effort to not deliberately contribute to polluting our environment to providing incentive's to corporations and governments to reduce and regulate appropriately. It does no long term good to punish business out of existence simply to appease one group or another. It does no good to exclaim that there is no such thing as global warming or to claim that humans have nothing to do with it or to say that there is nothing we can do about it.
But calling childish names of those that don't agree with you is even less helpful. Is it your goal to convince the opposition to change their mind and start seeing things from your point of view? If so, your efforts are woefully inadequate, assuming you would rather go with your heart and call people names. If you can't be bothered to make an effort to convince people to reconsider, then you should stop polluting the environment with your invective. I was once a very committed "denier" but I didn't stop researching and I deliberately avoid participating in the echo chambers that exist on both sides of the argument. Some very reasonable debate from considerate and passionate and knowledgeable people have contributed my change of position.
Yes, I believe there is enough evidence to conclude that the planet is warmer on average now than it has been in the last several hundred years. Yes, I believe that humans have contributed in exacerbating an natural process of warming that would have occurred without our involvement. We have made it worse by a measurable percentage. Yes I think there are things we should do to reduce the damage we are doing. No, I don't believe success will come from cap and trade, making carbon based fuel illegal or forcing our industry to move all their operations out of the country by draconian levels of regulation. I also am convinced that if we were to, today, stop all production of CO2 worldwide we wouldn't get back to "normal" levels for several decades. We need reasonable solutions that don't crush the life out of the lives we are trying to save.
We should be expending our efforts in trying to convince the opposition rather than shutting them down. We should be expending our efforts in researching and implementing reasonable solutions rather than lining the pockets of our "evangelists" and "prophets". I'm an example of the success that can be had by being reasonable, fair and adult in our efforts. It does work. Don't believe it, go back and read some of my previous posts.
Charter Member of The Committee Group For The Elimination And Eradication Of Repetitive Redundancy
And it's gone on just fine. Sure a massive global overheating may kill off a lot of flora and fauna, humankind included. But I'm pretty sure the Earth will keep right on trucking and in a few dozen million years will have a whole new set of flora and fauna and perhaps new intelligent species.
The whole global warming debate is as confusing as ever.
No. it isn't. As a scientist I can firmly conclude Global warming is happening, its caused by human activities, and we need to stop it as it contributes to an array of very devastating consequences.
there was no "pause" in global warming.
Of course not. destructive climate events don't have a pause or prorogue feature, especially when no immediate action has been taken by some of the largest offenders to curb or reduce emissions.
this may be off topic but bear with me here. Many slashdotters and general public alike either 'believe' in or don't 'believe in' climate change. climate change isn't a belief. Nothing about the current state of CO2 emissions or polar water levels care about your convictions or beliefs. Climate change is a scientifically observed and confirmed phenomenon that, despite the american tendency to do so, requires no foundation of belief. It isn't a superstition. You either understand the concept of climate change as it is occurring, or you refuse through ignorance or foolhardiness
Good people go to bed earlier.
NOAA should just release their inner pervert and claim that surface temperatures have increased 1000 degrees C since 1998 and 3000 billion human beings have died and 4000 billion goats have died due to global human warming.
Really, a trend of 0.005 per year and a p-value of >0.1, ...
Release the clown car.
So there is a 0.005 with p-value >0.1 that Obama is actually a Caucasian born in Austria.
Ha ha
What this reads as is that climatologists weren't able to even use a thermometer properly in the last decade, and yet they were in the decades and centuries previous. It's like they're trying to make people not believe them.
What is the temperature of the Earth *supposed* to be?
IOW, what is the *ideal* temperature for the planet, and while you're at it, show your work explaining how that particular number was derived.
It seems to me that the AGW folks chose temps circa 1850 or so as the gold standard, at least partly (but to me probably mostly) because that's about when decent measurements and record keeping began. Of course this ignores all temperature variations that preceded that.
They're kind like the Amish, who seem to have decided that technology circa 1850 or so is exactly the level of tech that is allowed. Why not technology circa 0AD--if Jesus didn't need the tech, why should the Amish?
If the AGW folks picked temps from about 15000 years ago, we'd *really* be in the dumper right? I mean, we'd have destroyed all that ice-pack covering swaths of North America, sea level would have risen 100ft, and the temp went up what? Like 8 degrees C? Talk about warming!
None of my comments should be construed to mean I think that humans are not contributing to climate change or that I'm fine with pollution. But this is nothing new, either.
Wikipedia: "The Great Oxygenation Event (GOE), also called the Oxygen Catastrophe, Oxygen Crisis, Oxygen Holocaust, Oxygen Revolution, or Great Oxidation, was the biologically induced appearance of dioxygen (O2) in Earth's atmosphere.[1] Geological, isotopic, and chemical evidence suggest that this major environmental change happened around 2.3 billion years ago (2.3 Ga). Cyanobacteria, which appeared about 200 million years before the GOE,[4] began producing oxygen by photosynthesis. Before the GOE, any free oxygen they produced was chemically captured by dissolved iron or organic matter. The GOE was the point when these oxygen sinks became saturated and could not capture all of the oxygen that was produced by cyanobacterial photosynthesis. After the GOE, the excess free oxygen started to accumulate in the atmosphere.
Free oxygen is toxic to obligate anaerobic organisms, and the rising concentrations may have wiped out most of the Earth's anaerobic inhabitants at the time. Cyanobacteria were therefore responsible for one of the most significant extinction events in Earth's history."
More people died in Ted Kennedys' car than because of Al Gore ... wait get me rewrite ...
Could it because those underlying assumptions are the most basic laws of physics and chemistry ?
If global warming by human activity is WRONG - then the question is moot since our understanding of thermodynamics is ENTIRELY FALSE and cars and power plants don't exist to emit CO2 in the first place.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Once again, they have manipulated the data (How is this not the story? They do this every 6 months. BE JOURNALISTS). Here's the link http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/
so if the data does not agree, change it
sigh
The biggest thing we need to know is the solution of "global Warming" is not, nor ever will be, more government/more socialism/ more debt/more taxes/ more regulation/less people/
Bollocks. Humans are really hard to kill off.
The understanding is right, its just that there is a meme going around that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in a vacuum means it is a GHG in our atmospere. Its heat capacity is actually lower than the weighted average of other atmospheric components. This is like trying to make a warmer blanket by adding metal shavings in with the fluff. If the warming measurements are accurate, anthropic modification of the water cycle (ie irrigation, paving, combustion pushes ever more water into the atmospere) is a more likely source. Of course, you need a little knowledge of physical chemistry and spectroscopy, and a huge fucking ego to stand up and say that this is the case, and climate scientists are all biased and are merely protecting their funding sources. After all, it is almost impossible to get a human who is paid to believe something to realize it is a lie, and even impossiber to get him to stand up and proclaim the truth. Sad fact of human nature.
without a published error band. 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade plus or minus what? Plus or minus 0.001 degree? If the scientists can justify the assertion that the measurements are that precise I'll sit up and pay attention. Plus or minus 1 degree? That's statistically zero. No change.
Scientific measurements without an error band are nothing more than populist trash. Shame on you guys; you're supposed to know better.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Researchers can put out all the papers they want about the effects of warming, but I have yet to see any evidence that CO2 is the cause given how minuscule the amount in the atmosphere is, and how an even smaller percentage of that is by humans. Water vapour is a much more plentiful and powerful greenhouse gas, and the sun is a much more powerful driver of climate. I believe the scientists who point out natural planetary cycles and solar sun spot cycles. This is not a left or right political thing to me.
Climate models have been a great means of testing and expanding our understanding of how our climate functions and interacts. That said, the limits on our climate models are GROSSLY underestimated by a great many people.
Why would I say that? Here's a quote from the IPCC's fifth assessment report:
For instance, maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent
the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system (Watanabe et al., 2010; Donner et al., 2011; Gent et al., 2011; Golaz et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2011; Hazeleger et al., 2012; Mauritsen et al., 2012; Hourdin et al., 2013).
Before I'm get accused of cherry picking quotes, notice that the statement is backed by reference to 8 separate peer-reviewed journal articles on the subject of climate model tuning. You can use google scholar to look up the articles if you want to point out any misrepresentation by the IPCC, but to save time I've read them myself and the characterization is accurate.
That is to say that TOA energy is hand tuned as a general practice to prevent the models running into unrealistic states. The parameter most commonly used to tune it is the function of clouds. To be fair, the tuning is also restricted to values that are 'reasonable', meaning in keeping with existing observational limits if there are any for the parameters being tuned. The Golaz et al article though notes that even within those limits the choice of equally valid and realistic parameters can make a big difference in predictions, in their case a near complete failure to reproduce recent warming in simulation by changing cloud parameters between equally realistic values.
As I said, climate models are great for advancing and test our understanding of interactions of components of the climate. That comes with the huge caveat though that TOA Energy is the absolute driving factor of long term warming/cooling, and climate models absolutely do NOT predict it correctly as in my understanding from multiple journal articles on the subject, hand tuning is required to prevent unrealistic TOA values over even observed time frames.
There are already 66 excuses of 18 years of no warming. This is the most radical. If facts don't fit theory, adjust facts. Ptolemean astronomers were adding more and more epicycles.
Ah yes the old "it's a global conspiracy of all scientists" argument.
The moment scientists dream of is where they get to prove everyone else that they're wrong. Because that means they're smarter than everyone else. If you've ever been to a science conference you would have seen first hand how heated arguments can get.
Scientists aren't paid to believe anything, they're paid to find out new stuff. And trust me, scientists loooooooooove when that new stuff makes them look smarter than everyone else.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
"you could get dragonfly's a meter long" So a dragonfly's *what* exactly would be a meter long?
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
There are three problems with this article:
First and foremost, this result is achieved with "corrected commercial ship temperature data", " corrected ship-to-buoy calibrations", and other adjustments. However, I don't see any information on where we can go to examine their adjustment techniques.
Second, the statements at the end of the article make it plain that the goal of the authors is to show even more warming. This is not a neutral investigation, but an investigation with a desired outcome.
Finally, with their new adjustments, they claim to have established a warming rate of around 0.1 degree/decade, and they also say that this is what the warming was from 1950 to 1999. Oddly, they then claim that this is "more than twice the IPCC's estimate". Now that's just weird. The IPCC never predicted so little warming. The IPCC originally predicted ten times that amount, or around 4 to 5 degrees per century (See page xxii, figure 8 in the IPCC report); later reports did revise that down, but never by an order of magnitude.
So: we have people massaging data again, but they are also apparently trying to massage history. Credibility? Somewhere around zero.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
If anyone actually believed in the AGW fantasy, the most effective step that could be taken would be to shut down China's industry with tariffs and sanctions and stop shipping coal to China where it causes 200% more CO2 to be emitted than it would being burnt in the regulated US power plants. That would crush the largest and fastest-growing CO2 emitter on the planet. But there is no money in that for corrupt statist politicians and bureaucrats. That's why the push crap that would have little impact like carbon taxes. Doesn't address the stated problem but gives them more power and money. A little thought will tell us EXACTLY what this is all about.
......has already been "corrected" multiple times by multiple people. Many of them continue to be "corrected" regularly.
The only logical assumption is that most, if not all measurements continue to be wrong.
The claim for the "pause", usually prattled off as "There's been no warming since...", requires that the issuer says that the annual average temperature record is 100% correct and that there is no internal variability unaccounted for in any of the science models that attribute the effects to their causes.
The precise opposite of what those making the claim say they think...
There has been no pause for the same reason there has been no pause in the cost of your living, despite you having spent today than yesterday.
Because there's variation around the trend.
And pick the "right" time and you can make nearly any claim you like.
Take the trend from 2013-2015.
MASSIVE change.
That means that the pause ended 2012, right? No? Why not?
The global economy runs on energy and material resources.
We call the mechanism we use to track the presence and value of these inputs "money".
We have collectively (publicly and privately, legally and illegally) lent out far more money than what accurately represents the real wealth (i.e., usable stuff) in the global system.
When the global economy recognizes this (it happens periodically, called a 'recession'), the revaluation of money to correspond with current real assets will cause a shrinkage in economic activity corresponding to the removal of excess money from the system. We cannot avoid this, since we have already made the claim on future output and spent it. If we cannot pay down debt in real wealth, we'll default on it.
How much less energy/resources will we consume then? (The US debt stands at over 100% of GDP, for example. We call a 10%+ reduction in economic activity a 'depression'. )
Thus will we reduce the generation of CO2 into the atmosphere, and then we'll get to see the effect on climate.
That is, those of us still generating CO2 for ourselves will see.
I bought this house and you know I'm boss
Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off
Yawn. It's too late to do anything about it anyway. You might as well sit back and enjoy it. Unless we start a geoengineering project to remove CO2 from the atmosphere (and who's going to pay for that?) it'll be a thousand years before levels return to normal, *assuming* we cut emissions to zero right now, which will never happen. We could put giant mirrors in space to cool the Earth, but who wants to do that? I like the heat, and since we were due for another ice age, I personally would rather not have New York State under a kilometer of ice.
More brain dead Dr. Tom-isms:
You're just the dumbest piece of shit fatalist I've read on Slashdot in quite some time -- who the fuck modded you up?
Here's a simple tangible request: Let's try to halt the INCREASE in greenhouse gases in our atmosphere so our children don't inherit an even bigger faster fucked up mess? Is that too hard of a concept for you to wrap your teeny tiny brain around? What new Libertarian horror are you?
And since the adjustments made reduced the trend, what does that make of your conspiracy?
YOU publish a full argument in support of manmade global warming that:
1. Does not include the work of people funded by anti-fossil-fuels activists (including those in government or international orgs)
2. Is not using "massaged data"
3. Is not in a publication that suppresses opposing papers.
You will find NO such pro-AGW work. The pro-AGW stuff has ALL been tainted by special interest cash, massaged data, and manipulated peer review and publishing. The advocates for the pro-AGW arguments have destroyed their own legitimacy by their highly-political actions. You were being slick and deceptive when you asked for a published rebuttal... you knew full-well that the manipulation of the scientific paper publishing process was one of the core arguments in the whole "climate gate" (gads, I HATE that whole "stick 'gate' on any scandal meme) e-mail scandal.
If the climate skeptics were boldly manipulating their data to make it fit their desired results, all you pro-AGW people would be freaking out and screaming at maximum volume hurling accusations that the skeptics were "anti-science" and dishonest.
Try a little consistency - it's good for the mental well-being
When we went from UDS2 to UDS3 we implemented many open source (cheaper) tests to replace the proprietary (expensive) tests.
While the new tests are designed to be close to the old tests, they are actually less culturally biased and better at prediction.
But the shift in tests causes either a plateau effect (an increase looks like it is stable and not increasing) or a discontinuity up or down.
Someone not familiar with the tests would say "Ah ha! Dementia was stopped!" or "Ah ha! there was a sudden increase/decrease in dementia due to the stress of the tests!"
Neither is correct. They are different (but similar and more predictive) tests.
Same thing here. NOAA upgrades hardware and software and gets better at analysis. People who want to deny what's really happening (global warming, or increased energy in climate systems resulting in much larger storms, changes in weather patterns (both colder snowstorms and hotter summers)) see the difference and latch onto it to deny reality.
Happens all the time.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
FTA:
A US government laboratory says the much talked about "pause" is an illusion caused by inaccurate data. Updated observations show temperatures did not plateau, say National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) scientists. The warming rate over the past 15 years is "virtually identical" to the last century, they report in Science.
May I ask a question or two?
1. They admit that they're using inaccurate data. Why should we trust the conclusions they reach?
2. The population has grown a great deal over the "last century" (and correspondingly the amount of carbon dioxide released). Why would the warming rate now be "virtually identical" to that from 100 years ago?
I can get more reliable information from people living in the psych ward. Can we please stop having every word from these kooks published as "scientific research", please?
"Scientists aren't paid to believe anything"
That is where you are completely wrong. Granting institutions blacklist ANYONE who comes out against AGW, no matter the field. Whether or not AGW is real, or comes from the proposed mechanism is irrelevant. If you speak out against it, right or wrong, you lose everything. This is ten-fold the case with climate scientists. Other branches might be able to seek funding elsewhere, whether from unaligned industry sources or the extremely biased Koch Brothers, but climate scientists don't have even that meager fallback.
I am a scientist. I have applied for and received million dollar grants. There are key words that are often used increase the probability of funding. "Global Warming" is one of them.
As much as scientists like to poke holes in theories, they absolutely will not do it when their funding is at stake. Even the most brutal attack dog doesn't bite the hand that feeds. And if he does, well, you know what happens.
For everyone worrying about our pending demise in 100 years based on climate models I would urge you to step back from the ledge.
Climate models are a great tool for expanding our understanding of climate processes and their interactions. They have been invaluable in gaining new knowledge and testing theories to better know how our climate behaves. At the same time, they also have a long ways to go.
The most basic primer on climate is that the greenhouse effect is basically the trapping of energy by gases in our atmosphere. The most basic and fundamental measure of this is the difference between energy coming in and energy leaving at the Top Of Atmosphere. This is more commonly referred to as TOA energy balance. This energy imbalance though is very small compared to the overall energy in and out, so measuring it is hard, let alone simulating it. Thus, parameters in climate models are hand tuned until TOA energy matches known and observed trends. This is a necessary step so that all the other modelled processes in the simulation operate under conditions that are reasonable and accurate and we can then compare their behaviour to the real world.
The alarmists, and maybe even some that don't count themselves such, will take huge issue with my next statement. With the climate models hand tuning TOA energy in order to avoid unrealistic conditions, and with TOA energy dominating long term climate trends, the climate models utility to long term predictions right now is poor at best and near nil at worst. You can't take a variable you've hand tuned and claim anything about it's predictive powers.
If you think I'm off my rocker, here's the IPCC saying the same thing:
For instance, maintaining the global mean top of the atmosphere (TOA) energy balance in a simulation of pre-industrial climate is essential to prevent
the climate system from drifting to an unrealistic state. The models used in this report almost universally contain adjustments to parameters in their treatment of clouds to fulfil this important constraint of the climate system (Watanabe et al., 2010; Donner et al., 2011; Gent et al., 2011; Golaz et al., 2011; Martin et al., 2011; Hazeleger et al., 2012; Mauritsen et al., 2012; Hourdin et al., 2013).
and later....
Model tuning directly influences the evaluation of climate models, as the quantities that are tuned cannot be used in model evaluation. Quantities closely related to those tuned will provide only weak tests of model performance.
I needn't point out that TOA energy is closely related to pretty near everything in our climate.
Of course they're wrong. That's why people constantly study them to try to improve them. Then they're normally less wrong.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The understanding is right, its just that there is a meme going around that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in a vacuum means it is a GHG in our atmospere. Its heat capacity is actually lower than the weighted average of other atmospheric components. This is like trying to make a warmer blanket by adding metal shavings in with the fluff.
A better analogy would be trying to make a transparent blanket warmer by adding tiny black specs to it. The CO2 causes warming because it absorbs infrared radiation that would otherwise escape into space.
You can easily demonstrate CO2's heat-absorbing effects using a fish tank (or similar chamber with transparent walls), bottle of compressed CO2 and a heat lamp. It's the kind of experiment middle school students do.
If the warming measurements are accurate, anthropic modification of the water cycle (ie irrigation, paving, combustion pushes ever more water into the atmospere) is a more likely source
The problem with this idea is there is a fundamental limit to how much water vapor the atmosphere can "hold," but there is no such limit on the portion of CO2.
Water vapor - which traps heat in the same way CO2 does - does not trap the same wavelengths of infrared radiation, meaning they are two largely independent effects that can be estimated separately.
=Smidge=
... change it so that it fits your preconceived notion/agenda!
It's this kind of bullshit that prevents people from believing the global warming hype.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/
The hiatus wasn't a stop of global warming. It was a decrease of the speed of the warming. Therefore even if the hiatus is real, it doesn't mean global warming has stopped, unlike what deniers have been saying.
Wahl & Amman's results were consistent with McIntyre & McKitrick's work and essentially confirmed a few of the M&M criticisms of the hockey stick. The story of how this played out is amusingly recounted by Bishop Hill in Caspar and the Jesus Paper.
I play Nerd-Folk!
Wow, dude, you have the design specs for planet Earth and therefore know exactly what the official procedure is for measuring the "Earth's Temperature"? And furthermore, you also have the part of the design specs that say what that temperature SHOULD ideally be and that it should not change?
See, here's one of the problems with this entire argument:
The idea that the Earth HAS a singular data point called "temperature" and that this number is properly representative of ANYTHING is a joke; it's a political idea rather than an objectively neutral scientific fact. There MAY be many specific temperatures of certain things on Earth that are very important, but there's no proof that we have accurately pinpointed exactly what those are, where those temperatures should be measured, what values are ideal and what variation is "bad". For example, It might well be that it's critical to note the temps at the poles and in the major rainforests, but the temps in the deserts or mountains hardly matter. Perhaps the temps in the mid-latitudes are all that matters. If we had this all figured out, then all the climate models would be very accurate and highly-predictive (to the point of accurately predicting both weather AND climate). Without a design document for the Earth, there IS no official temperature for the planet; any temperature advertized as "the Earth's temperature" is actually an arbitrarily selected measurement that some human selected but which is of no importance to the Earth itself.
Your second problem is that the Earth is BILLIONS of years old and yet you have reasonably accurate temperature data for some most of it for only the past 50 years. You have reasonably accurate temp data for a few regions that goes back about 200 years, and sloppy sporadic temp data for a few areas going back perhaps 500 years. In other words "on record" is meaningless - the record is statistically insignificant. All other temp data going back in time and in all those previously uninhabited-by-people-who-measured-temperatures regions is just projections of tree, mud, and ice data that is all entirely uncalibrated and cannot be honestly even put onto the same graphs - it CERTAINLY cannot report temperatures to within a degree, to say nothing of a tenth of a degree.
The claim that ANY weather measurement is the "hottest on record" or the "coldest on record" is only useful as an act of deception aimed at the uninformed - it belongs in the tabloids.
TFT should read: "NOAA Alters Climate Date to Hide Pause in Global Warming."
This paper is a real breakthrough. It's the clearest evidence yet of global warming that's directly attributable to the actions of man. This is a time of great celebrations!
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. -HLM
cars and power plants don't exist to emit CO2 in the first place.
Cars exist to move us around.
Power plants exist to produce power.
Neither exists to emit CO2, that is a result of the reaction.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
"The new analysis suggests a figure of 0.116 per decade for 2000-2014, compared with 0.113 for 1950-1999." Wow, so it would take like 1000 years to raise 1 degree.
What's asinine is equating a history of slowly changing climate with a rapidly changing climate that is clearly being caused by man.
The article shows error bands. The parent post is NOT insightful. It is incorrect.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
"The whole global warming debate is as confusing as ever."
I don' think this is correct. My understanding is there's no confusion, just debate over the rate of change. I guess taking the temperature of the planet is not as straightforward as taking the temperature of a person. The planet is big and data comes in from all over, and not everyone has exactly the same tools so there is some ambiguity in that. And the change delta is small to begin with, so any amount of noise or uncertainty is going to have an outweighed effect on our ability to read the numbers and use then as the basis for making predictions. But the only confusion is invented confusion by people that stand to benefit economically from maintaining the status quo.
Peace, or Not?
Right after we get a global agreement to drop CO2 injection to 0, if we mean business, we can start that migration today. I mean, even if we somehow got society to stop burning stuff it'll still take a long time to recover, right? So the seas will continue to rise (despite what HRH Obama once claimed) and temps will still keep going up, so we've got to begin to plan for the inevitable negative consequences for the damage already done.
Governments should start denying building permits for any new structures or infrastructure that is within 70m of current sea level (which is how much sea level would rise if all the ice covering Antarctica, Greenland, and in mountain glaciers around the world were to melt). Government can also stop encouraging people from living in those zones through subsidized flood insurance.
Political science major, Charles Koch Institute and Heritage Foundation alumnus
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/michael-bastasch/3a/6b8/292
Cook cook cook the stats.
Till they're nice and brown!
The temperature is always up.
Even if it's down!
The pause deniers are taking the rhetorical form of legitimate scientific debate, while not adhering to the actual principles of that debate.
PlanetVulkan.com
Forget the scientists. Just ask yourself, how can all that ice be melting if its not getting warmer?
Except the blanket ISN'T transparent. You are adding GREY specs that are very slightly LIGHTER than the average of the rest of the material.
Yes, you can do that experiment, but you would need to compare it to regular atmosphere (with the average humidity taken across the entire planet). Do that, and you find that the difference is within the margin of error. Done with a more precise procedure, you find that the CO2 is slightly less than the regular atmosphere (including monatomic and diatomic gasses).
Let me ask you: do you think the Earth has 100% humidity in the atmosphere at all times? Yes, I have seen this question DOZENS of times before, and it is no more valid now than any other time anyone who hadn't thought about the problem for five minutes asked me.
Water vapor absolutely does NOT trap IR the same way as CO2. The water "peak" is broad and low, meaning the more water you have, the more absorption you get, ie it scales linearly. CO2 has a thin, sharp, very tall peak, meaning it becomes saturated at low concentrations, meaning the absorption levels off quickly, at concentrations below current.
Just pull up the two spectra and integrate the number under each peak. It should be clear to you, that even if CO2 weren't already saturated, that a fraction of a percent of a change in H2O would swamp the effect from even a ten-fold increase in CO2. This is also obvious just from basic human experience. Go to any large city in a desert area (which should have CO2 levels three times the average for Earth). It gets cold at night. Go to a similar city, but in an area with 95% humidity (assuming no clouds), and guess what? HOT NIGHTS.
Oops, sorry, left the "nature" groups out. Go to the high desert where there are no people (and thus less CO2), and you will find cold nights as well. Similarly, 95% humidity areas far from civilization have hot nights. It should become clear from this that humidity is the dominant cause for heat retention, not CO2. And we do, in fact, pump a LOT of water into the air. It's on the same order of magnitude as would be expected for the observed warming.
Forget the climate models, just explain why if its not getting any hotter all the world's glaciers, ice fields, as ice caps are melting.
Stupid smart people.
It's called weather. Only someone with an infantile mindset would claim to know the future of the climate when a weather person can't even tell you what the weather will be doing a week from now.
" I’m skeptical because I have doubts about the data."
Forget "the [temperature] data" and just ask yourself, if its not getting any warmer, perhaps because the all climatologists are just pathological liars and simply incapable of reporting their data accurately, why are all the world's glaciers, ice fields, and ice sheets melting faster than at any previous time in Earth history?
Except it isn't even remotely informative, it is completely deceptive.
Perhaps you should go back to school, take some science classes and this time try and understand what happens when you take measurements.
Forget the climate models, just explain why if its not getting any hotter all the world's glaciers, ice fields, as ice caps are melting.
Who ever said it wasn't getting warmer? Sure wasn't me. Instrumental records since 1900 have shown a global upward trend. Sea level has been steadily rising over that same time.
You've maybe mistaken me for someone that wants to reject the science on this or something?
What I pointed to in the scientific literature was that climate models still aren't predicting TOA energy accurately and so they are still in the general practice of hand tuning parameters like clouds to correct it. Climate models are still terrifically useful for learning more about our climate, they are in fact fundamental to that end. I'm merely also noting that since TOA energy dominates long term climate trends, until models can predict it with being tuned by hand we can't rely on climate models for long term trends, or at the very least not without a lot of caveats and conditions.
Except the blanket ISN'T transparent. You are adding GREY specs that are very slightly LIGHTER than the average of the rest of the material.
1) Nitrogen and oxygen are transparent to IR, so for all intents and purposes, the "blanket" in this analogy is transparent too.
2) You are conflating heat capacity with spectral absorption. These are not even remotely related.
Yes, you can do that experiment, but you would need to compare it to regular atmosphere (with the average humidity taken across the entire planet). Do that, and you find that the difference is within the margin of error.
No, it most certainly is not. You take a transparent vessel, put a heat lamp in front of it, and stand on the other side. Normal air? You can feel the heat through the vessel. Fill the vessel with CO2 gas, and you immediately notice a significant reduction in the heat felt. You can quantify the decrease using IR sensors/FLIR cameras and plate thermometers. Very straightforward.
Water vapor absolutely does NOT trap IR the same way as CO2.
Thank you for basically repeating what I just said, glad we're in agreement.
CO2 has a thin, sharp, very tall peak, meaning it becomes saturated at low concentrations
Wrong on two levels.
For one, there's no concept of "saturation" at work here - CO2 will absorb ALL of the IR energy in the appropriate wavelengths. It's not like the molecules get "full" and let the rest of the IR pass through. The only factor that determines how much of the total radiation is absorbed is the density of the gas: More gas, more absorption.
For two, CO2 has three major peaks and one minor peak, not just one, and they aren't terribly sharp.
Oops, sorry, left the "nature" groups out. Go to the high desert where there are no people (and thus less CO2),
CO2 doesn't quite work that way. The atmosphere is constantly being mixed, especially at high altitudes, so the CO2 does not stay where it is generated for very long. That's what makes this a GLOBAL problem.
Deserts are cold at night because there's no mass to hold the heat. The sand does not hold much thermal energy and there is no entrapment of the radiation from other surfaces because it's basically flat. All emitted thermal radiation quickly escapes into the atmosphere instead of being trapped by buildings and trees.
This is another experiment you can try: Park your car overnight such that it is half under a tree. If it dips below the dew point overnight, you'll likely find that the parts of your car that have a clear view of the sky have more dew on them than the parts that can only "see" the tree, which may not have any dew on them at all. The car emits thermal radiation, and the tree absorbs/reflects some of that radiation back where the sky does not. The result is the exposed portions of the car can more easily shed the thermal energy and thus collect more dew.
95% Humidity areas away from civilization also have dense forests which trap the heat overnight.
And we do, in fact, pump a LOT of water into the air. It's on the same order of magnitude as would be expected for the observed warming.
[citation needed] - Gonna have to see where you're getting these numbers.
=Smidge=
That's exactly why we should be paying attention to electric joule heating -- because it is heat that would be particularly focused upon the poles, due to the effect of magnetic fields directing charged particles. The observational situation today is a bit much like trying to measure the inherent power of an AC signal with a DC probe: The E-field fluctuations at the poles are a bit faster than the tools being used to measure this power. There is energy within these fluctuations that is not being captured by efforts to date.
funny how people listen to junk science still
enjoy your hockey stick
Nobody suggested that was their purpose. Your comment has litterally zero relevance to the discussion.
The point was that the SAME laws of physics that allow those things to work at all, also makes global warming a reality. You CAN'T disprove global warming without altering those fundamental laws of physics and chemistry - without those laws, engines don't work.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
"Scoured by glaciers"? Please.
Judging by your asking over and over again, you seem to be very concerned about the ice. Two points for you to investigate by yourself: 1. The ice is currently not melting as rapidly as you are led to believe. 2. A sizeable portion of the world was covered under a mile of ice not *that* long ago. Go visit Switzerland (tho it's very expensive now) and stand in awe beneath the huge valleys that were scraped out by ice just a few millenia ago. That ice that went away quite quickly without agw. Bottom line: a long time warming trend is still continuing and is slowly but steadily melting some ice. Be glad it's not the other way round.
"The whole global warming debate is as confusing as ever."
No, it is not. As it turns out it is more clear than ever. Man has not greatly contributed to any change. NOAA cannot change reality by yet again manipulating data which is exactly what they have done. Typical tactic by people who cannot debate on the facts so they change the numbers. Somebody needs to send President Infamy a memo that the real data is out there and he should quite acting like a complete douche bag.
The real story is out there; I suggest you all read it for yourselves.
cough cough bull-cough-shit
... in a few dozen million years will have a whole new set of flora and fauna and perhaps newXXXX intelligent species.
There. Fixed.
The alarmists ARE the deniers, people. Nobody's figured that out?
[Citation Needed]
Seriously does any institution actually do this.
Or is this a blacklist containing such things as flat earthers to avoid wasting time and resources?
You know trying to be efficient.
You just know this thread will be full of denialist crap, repeating the same debunked talking points.
Yeah, just like Venus.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
...why did the IPCC muck with it's own data? If there IS no hiatus, then their data would have SHOWED warming, wouldn't it? Why would they doctor data that backed up their assertion?
And where, exactly, does YOUR new data come from? You, yourselves, point out the ship-based intake temperatures are now sampled far more than bouy-based ones and you admit they skew higher - understandably so as such measurements will always fall prey to differences in designs for the water inlets, and you make no mention of how you correct for this over the various classes of ships the data is coming from. You then use this same observation to contradict every other study but the IPCC, which was PROVEN to be cooking its numbers with the microwave set to 11? How does this prove SQUAT? The American database is corroded with closings of more remote monitoring stations and skew hot because of the heat island effect. How, exactly, are you compensating for that? Answer: you still aren't - yet your study must be either using no land-based data at all (and so you're comparing apples and peanuts) or you are using bad data (comparing apples with bad apples) - and even THAT is giving you the benefit of the doubt. Face it, the climate changers have been outed as serial liars, you have some serious backfilling to do - and more every time Obama opens his lying mouth!
And, ABOUT that, in the interest of full disclosure, how many of the people in THIS study are Democrats, have given money to Democrats, or are working for companies like Solyndra that depend on Democrat handouts? Because I think you're just another climate-change alarmist sock puppet.
In short, you have made an extraordinary claim in defiance of twenty years of established science, but you have NOT shown extraordinarily convincing data, just more of the usual.
We've been told that the models matched the non-adjusted records that existed before this new paper was published. These new adjustments mean that all of the models no longer match the past global temps. It might move some model predictions for the present a little closer, but not enough for an exact fit. I think they are hoping for a really strong El Nino to make up the rest of the deficit and then push for a big splash in Paris.
As long as skeptics have no access to raw data and publications "climate science" is on the same level as aryan physics was.
Whether or not they are valid, blacklists suppress dissent. The Nazis did that too, as did every authoritarian regime in human history. Why don't you let people hear both sides of the flat Earth story, rather than forcing the eccentric genius biologist who believes in it into retirement? The people, especially the educated ones, whose opinions actually matter, will look at the evidence and make a decision for themselves. This is the best way to avoid a situation like that which Copernicus found himself in (isn't it OBVIOUS that the Sun goes around the Earth!? What are you, nuts?).
In the fianl analysis, flat Earth theory is dependent on a torturous mathematical model that makes Earth special for no apparent reason, which is highly unlikely, making their suppositions highly unlikely. AGW, on the other hand, has a number of major problems, some of which I have pointed out (ie they have picked the wrong horse in terms of GHGs, and they appear to have manipulated raw data to agree with their conclusion).
You cannot sit and blame human technology for causing all of the global warming that causes the exposure of these new areas of farmland and then proceed to claim that they'd be infertile dead zones. We'd fertilize the shit out of it with our CO2 belching mega tractors just like we do every day now- ya know the reason those zones will be exposed in the not-too-distant future. You suck at debate. Your logic-fu is weak.
Fuck you and your kids. They're little fucking terrorists that are complete assholes. Everyone is always telling me to leave a good world for our kids. How about you fuckers leave some GOOD KIDS for our world?
The understanding is right, its just that there is a meme going around that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in a vacuum means it is a GHG in our atmospere (sic).
Huh!?!?!? Talk about blowing my mind. How can any gas exist in a vacuum? I presume you meant "in a laboratory".
The heat capacity of CO2 has nothing to do with its radiative absorption characteristics which is what traps the heat. Since over 70% of the planet is covered by water humans can do essentially nothing to directly affect the amount of it in the atmosphere. Since water vapor is a condensing gas at normal Earth conditions the level of water vapor is controlled by temperature and any excess water in the atmosphere simply precipitates out in short order.
Not the above AC.
That's not the requested citation.
Wow, the conspiracy must really be strong to co-opt every granting institution in the world and keep it together for over 3 decades without anyone discovering the deception. If they're really that good you might as well give up and go along with the program because you'll never defeat them. /snark
So, you're saying that nitrogen, oxygen, and CO2 are the only components of the atmosphere? Sorry, I did the math. You are leaving out quite a bit, especially WATER.
Heat capacity IS spectral absorption. RAMAN+IR spectral absorption. If you disagree, then one of us doesn't know what he is talking about, and I have the degree in the subject.
No, it most certainly is not. You take a transparent vessel, put a heat lamp in front of it, and stand on the other side. Normal air? You can feel the heat through the vessel. Fill the vessel with CO2 gas, and you immediately notice a significant reduction in the heat felt. You can quantify the decrease using IR sensors/FLIR cameras and plate thermometers. Very straightforward.
[citation needed]
More gas, more absorption.
Yes, until 100% of the radiation is absorbed, which happens at a pretty low concentration, one that we already passed. IE there is no difference between an atmosphere where 100% of photons are absorbed within 20 meters, and one where it happens within 10. This is because it is SATURATED. More doesn't matter. That is what the word "saturation" means.
"so the CO2 does not stay where it is generated for very long"
Yale begs to disagree. http://e360.yale.edu/digest/co... CO2 domes are a well known phenomenon, and any organization that DENIES their existence should immediately lose credibility in this discussion. Luckily for NASA, that isn't at all what that web page is about.
Also, please stop making shit up because it sounds like it supports your argument. All you are doing is destroying your own credibility. Ideas are not soldiers. You are not obligated to support ideas that are on your side even if they are wrong or weak.
"[citation needed]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://news.nationalgeographic...
http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/v...
Really, just a duckduckgo search for "percentage of land that is irrigated" and "percentage of land that is paved". Its a lot. If you don't believe me, take the window seat next time you fly across country and MARVEL at the number of huge circles of irrigated farmland. Or just look out the window of your apartment and note how much of the area that you can see is or isn't paved.
Sorry, I'm not Snowden. He probably has something on the subject in the 99% of documents he has yet to release, though. All I have is anecdote.
But be fair. If you were in charge, wouldn't you block funding to these crazies? Why are you wasting taxpayer money on people who are so unscientific and, well, just downright evil?
Do you think the people who work at granting agencies are angels?
You've done the experiment? This experiment? The one that can't work?
See that "Preview" button?
Sorry--should have said heat capacity is proportional to the area under the curve (ie the integral) of the IR absorption spectrum.
Oh, they "corrected" the data, and now it shows exactly what they want it to show. Great work, boys.
No, heat capacity is a physical property of a substance - the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of that substance. The IR absorption spectrum has absolutely nothing to do with heat capacity.
=Smidge=
and I have the degree in the subject.
Of course you do.
You need a citation for a basic experiment? Really? Um, okay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
This is literally an experiment that middle school children do in science class. I didn't think a citation would be necessary for basic physics.
Yale begs to disagree.
Less wind due to buildings means the CO2 is slower to disperse - but that does not mean it never disperses. Otherwise, after nearly a hundred years of urban activity, there would be no breathable air left in the cities.
The idea that CO2 is more concentrated at the sources is not what I'm contesting - my claim is it does not stay there. By way of analogy, the concentration of pollution near a sewer pipe discharging into the ocean will be higher near the pipe, but that doesn't mean the pollution never spreads out.
You are not obligated to support ideas that are on your side even if they are wrong or weak.
I really don't know where you're coming from here. You are wrong about heat capacity, you are wrong about how CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere, and you are wrong about the role water vapor plays in the whole thing. I'm not defending any ideas here other than basic physics.
Sounds like you're projecting, really.
The references you provided were all about irrigation area. I'm not contesting that we've done a lot to transform the landscape, and I'm not contesting that human activity increases water evaporation.
I asked you to provide support for your claims about the effects of atmospheric water, specifically the claim anthropomorphic sources of additional humidity are "on the same order of magnitude as would be expected for the observed warming."
=Smidge=
You give me the answer, and I'll give you the data. Or else you give me the data, and I'll give you the answer. So says warmism.
Only by using the weakest of the global temperature datasets and ignoring the best (satellites) and making adjustments beyond belief. Please read what Dr Judith Curry says about it
http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/#more-18991
One thing I like about the satellite temperature datasets is that there are 2 and they are run by scientists with opposing views on the issue of CO2 controlling climate. RSS is run by Dr Mears and he holds the position that CO2 does control the climate and UAH is run by Dr Spencer who holds the opposing view. I like that because they keep each other honest and data manipulation doesn't occur as much when you have someone with an opposing view going over your work.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/03/el-nino-strengthens-the-pause-lengthens/
A question for everyone who thinks that CO2 controls the climate. How long with rising CO2 and flat or falling temperatures before you admit your theory is wrong? 20 years? 30? Never?
All 5 of the major datasets (RSS, UAH, HadCRUT4, GISS, NCDC) show no warming for between 12 and over 18 years. In that time CO2 has risen 8-10%. In fact more than half the CO2 released by humans in the last 150 years has been released in the last 20 years.
So how long do you ignore reality of diverging predictions and data before you admit that CO2 doesn't control the climate?
OK how does science update observations without a time machine?
Observations are observed facts and by their nature do not
change unless a calibration was found to be incorrect and
then it is not the observation that changes it is the computed
result after application of calibration data.
I am a believer in global warming and global climate change.
I am not a believer in much of the "science".
I balk at consensus science.
My personal bias has many origins but the one the gets me
was a "customer" complaining that his new supercomputer
was giving him an incorrect 19th digit in the resulting output.
I cracked open the deck (old FORTRAN) and noted on the
first screen "PI = 3.14". This tells me that NOTHING in
the output that involved PI had any validity beyond three digits.
Yet this guy was concerned with the 19th.
I asked why he did not substitute a value of PI from math.h
and he explained that the code was unstable if given more
digits to PI. OMG I said to myself.
Then I looked at his published research and yes he was worried
about CO2 in the ocean but in specific he wanted to eliminate
natural regions of the sea floor low enough in O2 to sequester
organic matter. i.e. he was worried about a natural process that
reduced CO2 in the air and wanted to eliminate it.
I happen to live down wind of "El Niño" and am astounded by the inability
of the global weather services to model and measure this. I see
headlines like: ""El Niño might “push the needle on global temperature” toward unprecedented warmth""
This is a conjecture for the 2015-2016 rainy season in Calif less than a year away
and others are telling me that the sky is falling in 100 years.
Like I said I am a believer that man is altering the planet weather.
I do believe that the ostriches in government need to fund quality
research and fund better data gathering efforts.
The United nations needs to mandate that all commercial aircraft, trains and all ships at
sea carry an instrument package to assist in data collecting efforts.
And that that data be delivered to the UN for use by all UN members.
This does leave big data voids but it would be a start.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
There probably is something to global warming and GHGs. We should move to reduce emissions and reliance on fossil fuels, if for no other reason that public health.
However, the democratic party's politics seems to be distorting what needs to be done, and in what time frame. They seem to confuse popular spending with effective spending. Many of the cabinet hierarchies have names like "Housing and Urban Development" but urban blight seems as bad as ever, and housing unaffordable, with little innovation in either area for many decades, even though this one federal hierarchy has 8,000 employees and spends 32 B. a year.
Too often the Democrats and the social left clamor for spending authority on a popular crisis, but there is no mission statement, milestones, time frame, or definition of success. The IPCC and the National Academy have, at times, said that climate change is not a major priority, as the gases have been pumped into the atmosphere for many decades, and will not "half life" out for many decades to come.
The USA is no longer the largest contributor to GHGs, and that makes it a UN / International issue. As we've seen in Kyoto and other conferences, it is very expensive for a nation to shut down or modify their fossil fuel plants early. They're led to US technologies and services to do so. It has the taint of self-serving corruption -- the USA and Europe claim "Doom is coming! And by the way, here's the technology you need to buy from us, and the new loans to do it". No wonder they want western nations to share the costs.
Now for the democratic party hypocrisy : The famous green senator from California, Barbara Boxer, was all smiles and fist-pumping two years ago when she and her zealots finally shut down the San Onofre nuclear power plant. In the aftermath, fossil fuel plants had to be brought on line to compensate, increasing California's CO2 output by some 12%.
Note also that Californians spend an additional $1 per gallon for gasoline than the rest of the nation. Not sure how that affects climate change, but it is an indicator that democrats will harm Americans in the pocketbook when their tax and spend zealotry is allowed to run unchecked. No oversight means unlimited power -- when the Democrats controlled all three federal branches after the "everyone must own a home / easy credit" real estate collapse, they immediately accepted record donations from health insurance companies, wrote a 120 thousand word bill, and expanded it into 400,000 or so new federal regulations. In reality, a person could count the basic complaints about health insurance on three fingers -- high costs, refusal to cover, denial of service. What we've ended up with is rapidly becoming as expensive as what we had before, with the added bonus of forcing religious organizations to provide contraceptives.
The expansion of electric cars everywhere is going to happen. It's a crucial step towards reducing GHGs. Also many businesses and homes are shifting to solar and installed energy efficient devices. Yes, the Democrats are largely responsible for pushing these technologies along. Two gold stars.
But the day to day hysteria over GHGs doesn't match the reality about what can be done about GHGs and in what timeframe. The IPCC and the National Academy both agree that there are time frames involved -- goals for the next 20 years, 75 years, 150 years. They've also said that little can be done beyond what we are doing now -- monitoring, trying to foster international agreements, reduction in fossil fuel use, exploring advanced energy technologies. Generally speaking, we are doing what can be done. Having the two traditional, pseudo-liberal, national propaganda streams -- New York and Los Angeles -- pump out hysterical stories about the issue is tiresome, annoying, and more about influencing elections and scaring people than improving the atmosphere.
Because scared people might quickly vote Democrat and ignore the larger problems : A 4:1 ratio of taxpayers to government funded employees. 4,000,000 word
Why is the polar ice coverage greater now than at any previous time in the satellite-observation era?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
The models are made up to fit whatever bullshit they want to prove. ,dynamic 3 d object like the Earth.Impossible.Think about it.It varies from place to place from the tops of mountains to the bottom of oceans add in the air/sea currents ,radiation going and coming going out variations in albedo ,cloud cover and so and on and on...
It's impossible to measure the temperature of a rotating complex
Natural fluctuations happen in temperature in any variable over time in a very large complex 3 dimensional object like the earth with its complex surface,seas and atmosphere.
The temp in your room varies over 24 hours and from place to place and over a week and over a season and over a year...so it goes for any dynamic system over long time periods for a huge dynamic system like Earth with millions of variables.
You cannot measure the average temperature of the planet earth because it is so large and non homogenous.you are all very stupid for believing these fractions of a degree temperature variations of a huge dynamic system.
Have you ever thought of this?
I can set up a 5 digit digital thermometer in my room and it depending on the time scale i choose to promote my corporate or political agenda it can show all sorts of alarming temperature trends over 5 minutes,5 hours, 24 hours or a whole year.
The people pushing this are all very easily brainwashed or you are simply paid pimps of corporate and political interests.
Just like the Holocaust.
And by exactly which magical mechanism does the energy get into the molecule, if not by IR absorption? Phlogiston?
Molecules absorb and hold energy in their bonds. You can tell which bonds hold how much energy from the spectrum (its the area under the curve, as I said). This is spectroscopy 101.
Well, if the data doesn't say what you want, just change it. That is what we have come to expect from global warming scientists, so how can we trust them? Are they using real numbers, faked numbers, guessed numbers, ???
Godwin! Nicely done. I see you didn't manage to blame the communists in that post, and proudly showed your lack of understanding of the subject. You are clearly a very rational person.