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
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?
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.
Actually, there is a fairly simple solution that can be done in a couple of decades, and has the bonus side effect of producing megatons of food in some of the more impoverished regions of the world. The trick is to convert semi-arid and arid grasslands into productive grazing lands for herbivores by using Managed Intensive Rotational Grazing which is described in detail (with stunning before/after photos) by Allan Savory in this TED Talk.
In a nutshell: MIRG simulates the "mobbing, mowing, and moving" behavior of large herds of herbivores in nature, where herds "mob together" for protection from predators, and move constantly to find fresh pasture. Following in their wake is a swath of "disturbed" pasture, which has just been aerated by hoof prints and fed with a rich load of fertilizer. This spurs a blaze of regrowth in the grasses, which replaces root mass which had earlier been shed (many plants shed root mass when cropped, to preserve the root-shoot ratio). Thus, every time herbivores graze a piece of land, they sequester a large amount of carbon into the soil, and actually increase the health and the depth of the topsoil.
Obviously, there's quite a bit more to this story, including earthworks to harvest and retain water, permaculture design to optimize ecosystem health and productivity, etc. But hopefully this will be enough to get the gears turning...
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
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.
Your words speak the truth...
You "personally believe" in man-made global warming... just like Christians "personally believe" in God.
I know a few Christians who think the matter is "settled" as well.
---
To the point, I have no idea if we even have global warming, that point can be debated. Then the question is, if we have it, how much, if any, is man-made?
...except they didn't, overall. It would be wrong, at that: most ship-based SST measurements are at various depths (ship intake, bucket measurements, each of which are at random depths). A ship engine intake depth can be anywhere from a meter below the surface to ten times that depth, and the old bucket measurements were all over the place.
Adjustments for differing measurements have already been made in the historical record - they went in and adjusted it MORE because it wasn't agreeing with the global warming that they just assume has to be happening (because of their continually-blown model predictions).
Your "reinterpretation" of #3 is fanciful at best. Why make bad science even worse by adjusting the actual data?
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.
There isn't one in an abstract sense. OF course the Earth doesn't care if we live or die or merely suffer a lot. One can be fairly sure that current society is built around the current conditions. I have no doubt the human race will survive pretty extreme events. However given the amount of infrastructure near sea level and the amount of farming land positioned predicated on the current claimate with its rainfall and temperature patterns one can be fairly sure that any big change is going to be pretty disruptive.
For example, take a large, sea-level city of your choice. Assume no dramatic changes in population size. If the sea level rises to make the city uninhabitable, what would be required to build a new city elsewhere with the same infrastructure? Now multiply that by the number of large low-level cities. You're into hundreds of trillions of dollars very quickly, and that's barely getting started.
It seems to me that the AGW folks chose temps circa 1850 or so as the gold standard
Huh? The AGW "folks" (and by that presumably you mean the scientists trying to demonstrate that anthropogenic global warming is happening) piked a starting point around about when we started with large scale coal burning, i.e. large scale carbon emissions. Nothing prior to that would be anthropogenic since we didn't burn all that much fossil fuels before that.
It's not a "ooh life is wonderful" gold standard of any sort. It's the industrial revolution.
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.
So, you're claiming that those trying to prove humans are causing global warming have decided that vast, inefficient machines burning vast quantities of coal is optimal? [citation needed]
If the AGW folks picked temps from about 15000 years ago, we'd *really* be in the dumper right?
You can get temperature graphs going that far back if you wish. You see a sudden kick up at around 1850 or so when humans started relasing sequestered carbon in large quantities.
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.
Then honestly what to fuck do you mean? You seem to be confusing a lot of different things. For a start the phrase "AGW folks" is utterly meaningless. Are you talking about scientists, politicians, lobbyists, journalists, bloggers, environmentalists? What?
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."
What's the relevance of that?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
As David Attenborough said on a similar subject "that's sort of not the point". The point is that if temperatures are rising, human encouraged or not, we're still in trouble. Whilst cutting pollution to zero might not stop the rise, it presumably would reduce it and thus doing something about it would make sense as it would prolong the time we have with the world sort of as it is now.
I know enough about history to know the Romans (in part) came to England because they could grow wine here. We're getting back to having vineyards here, but they're relatively new and not at their peak yet. However, the question is... do we want to live in a world that has long since past? Maybe we can and do, but maybe our way of life depends on the current environment more than we'd care to admit.
Maybe you should take a different view that actually fits the data:
That the fluctuations are normal for earth, and stop trying to fix a problem that has not been proven.
People use to ice skate on the Themes as well, during the little ice age. Neither time period had enough humans to create those conditions, so humans are not a significant part of the equation.
Unless you think medieval industry caused the mini ice age.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
you mean the one that's being misreported on by Fox and other "news" sources in bed with the industry?
let me guess what you think the report says....your tone is a large enough indicator on that score.
in fact, i'll bet you only read the initial headlines, since retracted, that stated "EPA says fracking is safe" and variations on that theme. you definitely never bothered to read the whole article, or to find the report itself and peruse it.
so let me help you out.
the report that states, and I quote:
From our assessment, we conclude there are above and below ground mechanisms by which hydraulic fracturing activities have the potential to impact drinking water resources. These mechanisms include water withdrawals in times of, or in areas with, low water availability; spills of hydraulic fracturing fluids and produced water; fracturing directly into underground drinking water resources; below ground migration of liquids and gases; and inadequate treatment and discharge of wastewater.
We did not find evidence that these mechanisms have led to widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States. Of the potential mechanisms identified in this report, we found specific instances where one or more mechanisms led to impacts on drinking water resources, including contamination of drinking water wells. The number of identified cases, however, was small compared to the number of hydraulically fractured wells.
They cut a fine line between saying it has "no effect" and it "always has an effect".
they say it can have an effect, and be harmful, but it mostly localized right now, rather systemic (ie, inherent) to the activity.
you are now about twice as informed and intelligent as you were previously.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.