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."
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.
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
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.
Sure. And we could go on emitting CO2 like it is nobodies business, and maybe wreck this earth. That would be evidence, but not proof, that climate change is man made. For proof you would want to wreck at least 3 earth, and have another 3 control earth that are just fine without humans.
No, Scientists are not Politicians. As new data and peer review move forward things are revised. Otherwise out model of the solar system would still have Earth in the center of it.
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
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.
No, Scientists are not Politicians. As new data and peer review move forward things are revised. Otherwise out model of the solar system would still have Earth in the center of it.
Oh really how do you feel about that report from the EPA on fracking ? Seems a whole lot of environmentalists only like science when it agrees with their prejudices.
And it seems a whole lot of anti-environmentalists (or whatever term you care to use) start to like science when it agrees with their prejudices.
That sword cuts both ways.
Humans emitting CO2 is not a greenhouse problem. Human breathing is carbon neutral - you can't breath out more CO2 than the carbon you've eaten (less actually since you grow cells out of some of it - that ballances out when you die and decompose).
So every bit of CO2 you breath out, is ballanced by having had that same amount taken OUT by the plants you ate first.
The CO2 problem is carbon that was fossilized millions of years ago being burned today - with nothing having taken the equivalent amount out first.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
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...
Science is a method, not a result, nor a being. "Science" doesn't say anything. With highly politicised topics like this, it is not the data that tells the tale, but rather those flawed humans who may or may not appropriately report the data that tells the tale. There has been enough fraud discovered in academia alone, without systemic bias toward a given result, that to fail to question these results is a major failing on the part of anyone who takes them at face value.
Well, what should we do vs what can we do becomes the biggest question.
Before you can answer that question you have to answer this one first: "How much is it rational to spend on this project?"
The word you are looking for is "calibration".
The phenomenon you are describing is called "system-wide consistent calibration error".
The problem with claiming that you have corrected a system-wide consistent calibration error is that you really need to explain how you managed to screw up the sensor calibration in the first place, on all of the ocean buoys, in such a way that they all had the SAME wrong readings.
The 'ideal' temperature of Earth is one where nearly-sea-level communities, where a vast portion of humanity live, aren't flooded, forcing enormous migrations. The breadbaskets of the world should still stay productive, and the deserts should stay roughly where they are. A warming planet might open up a lot of Siberia and Canada to farming, but how long would it take to get large farms going, and how much of the wilderness would be ruined? The ideal temperature isn't about Earth--it can survive anything we can throw at it. The ideal temperature is about supporting 7+ billion humans without huge die-offs, and if we can avoid it, triggering mass extinctions.
Exactly this.
Earth's climate will absolutely change because it has never not been changing. That's why the whole "climate change is real" argument is so asinine. Of course it's real. The only question at all is anthropogenesis. But even without anthropogenesis, the climate is guaranteed to change adversely for humans -- because that's what Earth's climate does.
In one hundred thousand years, the climate will absolutely 100% be different -- with or without humans, industry or fossil fuels.
And the chances of Earth remaining in a human-friendly, temperate zone indefinitely are zero.
What humanity needs to come to grips with is that our planet was not designed for us. The opposite is true: We were designed for a brief, fleeting set of climatic conditions that with 100% certitude will not persist indefinitely.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
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.
"potentially moving fertile crop zones hundreds of miles"
It is always bemusing to see people think that because global warming will create higher temperatures in previously colder places that food crops can simply be grown in these newly warmed environments. The fact is that much of the reason food crops grow where they do in addition to evolutionary adaptation to specific habitats, is the fact that sufficient moisture and adequate quality soils are also available. Good quality soils can take hundreds or even thousands of years to develop. Many high latitude environments have very poor soils, often having been scoured by glaciers for thousands of years. Likewise, flowering and consequently pollination is affected by day/night length as well as by temperature, so simply because high latitude environments may become warm enough for crops to grow doesn't mean that flowering or pollination will be possible in these newly warmed environments.
The threat from human induced global warming is not simply that humans are warming the planet by burning fossil fuels, but rather very much about how fast we are warming the planet. We are currently warming the planet between 100 and 1000 times faster than would occur naturally and as a consequence we are disrupting the very ecological relationships upon which humans depend for their survival. Although its probably true that a few humans will survive and linger in the kind of Mad Max world we are creating for current and subsequent generations, but the vast majority of humanity is already on the road to extinction within a few hundred years at the current rate of change.
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.