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."
we will take out what we don't like and put it what fits our agenda.
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!!"
Impress us all by publishing a full rebuttal of global warming in the journal of your choice.
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
You mean when the average temperature at orkney has risen by 15C?
That seems like a pretty steep requirement given that we'd expect the major global issues to have happened already with a rise of only 2 or 3C.
Don't you think they would have just manipulated the data to show what they wanted in the first place?
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.
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...
Hell, I'd be happy if these jokers could even manage a partial rebuttal.
Science reporting is garbage these days. Dave Jones just did a rebuttal to the "Batteriser" that a whole lot of otherwise respected media outlets are running... as he says any competent EE can tell you loads of ways the Batteriser is 99.999% marketing spin. It's still everywhere and loads of people buy that bullshit.
Explaining global warming is much more complicated than debunking the Batteriser, so if Batteriser demonstrates our current level of competence in reporting something, we've got no F-ing chance at all of getting the real story with global warming to the general public.
The fact that 95% of competent scientists in that field agree should be good enough. Marketing BS by people whose interests are affected by the results of the science apparently don't even have to try that hard to convince a lot of people the science is somehow contested.
Put it this way... I'd bet there are plenty of people that would be skeptical if 95% of competent EEs stood up to say Batteriser is trash, claiming conflicts of interest with some "establishment" or "group think".
A person is smart. People are stupid.
Ever notice how the deniers always post as Anonymous?
Ever notice how anyone with even the slightest hint of skepticism gets voted down in to oblivion because of the group-think?
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
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."
You have a misconception of what science is. None of the facts you mention result from measurements that you did yourself. Rather you heard it from others, and you trust them. If you did measure them yourself, you would have to rely on the correctness of someone else's measurement device. If you made your own measurement devices, you'd rely on someone else's established theory of the phenomena you're measuring. And so on...
In the end, nothing in science is beyond doubt. Science does not deal in truth. What does science deal in? Well, there's a whole scientific discipline to answer this question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Did you read the article? They arbitrarily increased all buoy temperature data. If you alter a huge part of your data set to a warmer temperature, of course it shows a larger global increase in baseline temperature.
I say arbitrarily, because there is no provided scientific reason for altering the data.
Furthermore, the error for their data increases over time. This is suggesting data collected in 50's is more accurate than that collected in 2000's. The only reason this would show up statistically is poorly collected data.
Lastly, they adjusted the buoy temperatures by 0.12 degrees which is within the margin of error of temperature change.
They are biasing the data. This isn't science, it's statistical manipulation.
I'm not saying I don't believe people impact global weather, but its hard to determine how when we bias our science with a political agenda.
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
Well, here's the thing. You've got to take the best you've got. I'm not an expert, so I'm going to defer to those that are.
(This is not specifically to you, just a general response)
I'm reasonably scientifically literate, and I'm a fairly good problem solver. So are lots of people. The problem is, people can run through any random train of thought they want to reach some conclusion that sounds logical as hell, and still with no real background in what they're talking about, they can be wildly wrong because... big surprise... they don't actually know what they're talking about. While a lot of stuff sounds simple most things actually aren't.
So, if you don't know the background, you generally should not offer an opinion. Sure, in the west everyone thinks they're fully entitled to their opinion (maybe), and that their opinion is as valid as anyone else's (dead wrong). Seriously, you're just screwing everybody around you by taking respect in your analytical skill and offering an opinion. If a problem SEEMS simple to you, and you're wondering why the experts are so damn wrong... that's a warning sign not that there's some global conspiracy, but that you're missing some big part of the puzzle.
Really.. if there were huge holes in the science, you can bet a lot of scientists (not pundits or armchair theorists) would be screaming about it. Scientists aren't 100% going to get behind "protecting their interests" by towing a line.... if you're a scientist and you can offer credible reasons why most everyone else is full of crap, you're going to be set for life on funding from companies and organizations who REALLY want climate change to go away as a topic. The fact that the huge amount of money spent looking for problems in the science is only able to show results that are easily disputed as mistaken or cherry picking is telling. The science is looking reasonably solid to me on just that basis. At least, solid enough to be considering what can be done if it's right and doing something.
Of course the models are going to be inaccurate. A big part of the problem is the intuitive reaction for lots of otherwise quite rational people is to think "How can they know what the weather will be in 100 years when they can't even get next weekend's forecast right?"... and that becomes the core to their skepticism.
You have to actually look at the science, the feeds to the models, and the processes involved to understand there's probably something there. It's not the same type of forecasting.
To me, this is very much like saying "How can electronics possibly work if you idiots can't even predict exactly where an electron is going to be?" Guess what, you don't need to. Perfectly reasonable science can be built even if the discrete elements of that science are buried in uncertainty.
"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.
A little understanding goes a long way to dispelling and preventing the spread of myths and misinformation: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad...
Even more, playing devil’s advocate, the scientists tried to force their data to show them a hiatus; they redid the calculations starting in 1998, as so many deniers have done. The result? The warming from 1998 – 2014 is 0.106 C per decade. It’s still there.
The corrections they applied have to do with the way sea surface temperatures were taken; the method has changed over time, and that introduces biases into the data. The good thing though is that new methods, new understanding of the nature of data measurement, allow scientists to go back and re-examine older data and apply corrections to it.
Different measurement methods have their own inherent biases. They went back through the data AND ITS SOURCES and found that some of the data believed to be from buoys was from engine intakes, and some from intakes was from buoys, and some was from the really old fashioned method of "haul up a bucket of water and measure it".
All corrections are about canceling out those inherent biases so that everything starts from the same baseline.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
So, you're asking whether or not the scientists did their jobs? Yes. They did. They used the best available information to make the temperature records as accurate as possible.
But ultimately issues like this don't make a significant difference to the overall conclusion that the Earth is warming. They just change a few trailing decimal places on how much it's warming. So if your real question is, "Can climate scientists making an error here call into question that the Earth is warming?" then the answer is a flat no.