It doesn't matter when a climate model was created. You can run them for any time period regardless.
Keep in mind that when I say they work on a 30 year average you're going to have to wait until 2029 to determine what the actual 30 year average for 2014 is so you have something to compare to climate model output.
If you're wondering where the 30 year time period comes from it's defined as the classical climatological period by the World Meteorological Organization and thus is the standard period used by climatologists. It might be a bit arbitrary but you couldn't shorten it by more than 2 or 3 years without starting to run into problems caused by short term variability.
It's not likely that volcanic or tectonic activity has much of anything to do with it. Even the largest volcanic eruption of the past 100 years, Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 emitted only 42 megatonnes of CO2, only 0.2% of the 23 gigatonnes emitted by human activities that year.
A little more critical thinking would be in order. It's not the absolute change which is something life can adapt to but the rate of change which can cause a lot of devastation before life has the time to adapt.
I'm not an expert - I try to find out what percentage of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere every year is attributed to human activity and I can't get a definite answer.
It's the wrong question. We know from the Carbon Cycle that large amounts of carbon cycle between the various reservoirs of carbon (atmosphere, ocean, land and biosphere) yearly but that doesn't change the total amount of carbon in the carbon cycle. The carbon cycle was pretty balanced for thousands of years with the CO2 level in the atmosphere remaining around 280 ppm. Human activity takes carbon that's been out of the active carbon cycle for millions of years and adds it back in. That is reflected in the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, the lowering pH of the oceans and some increased plant growth. Since 1830 atmospheric CO2 has risen from about 280 ppm to around 400 ppm now, a 40% increase. Nearly all of that increase is attributable to human emissions.
The basic relationship between change in temperature and change in CO2 levels was stated by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It says the change in temperature = Ln * (current CO2 level/starting CO2 level) * a constant. That doesn't require a computer to calculate.
We can't even start a discussion until you actually accept reality...
We also can't start a discussion about models until you demonstrate an understanding of what models are capable of in the first place. Current models are better than any other method we have for projection future climate.
The full name is "Climate Science Denier". It's funny how the only people making the connection from climate science denier to holocaust denier are the climate science deniers. It must be a defensive tactic.
When the climate change topic comes up, my brain automatically translates that the punitive corrective measures bandied about over the years...
The only corrective measure that works in the long run is to reduce CO2 emissions to near zero. How you get there isn't important as long as you do. So if you don't like the proposed solutions come up with your own keeping in mind the ultimate goal.
Yet, basing your argument on science models that can predict the climate 10 years into the future yet somehow can't predict the climate tomorrow...
Climate models don't even project 10 years into the future well, they work more on 30 year time scales. What happens tomorrow is weather, not climate. An analogy is rolling dice. You can't very well predict the results of one or even a few tosses of the dice but you can make a pretty good estimation of the results of 10,000 tosses.
You haven't reviewed the data, you can't, its not public,...
Any time I see someone claiming this I know they haven't tried themselves and they're just repeating something they read on a blog somewhere. It makes it easy for me to dismiss their post.
The hiatus still continues. And yes there is a hiatus nowdays even in the mainstream pro-agw camp, saying otherwise makes you a denier.
And the climate science deniers continue to believe that if the current theory is correct that temperatures should rise in lockstep with rises in greenhouse gases like the output of a manual transmission in relation to the input.
They didn't use the word "consensus" once in that editorial.) But I can see how you take that from it. That a consensus exists is not by itself an indictment of the science. If it just develops organically when they (nearly) all realize they agree about something then it's healthy. In any scientific field if more than 90% of the practitioners agree about something I'm going with them.
To quote: "Entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years". Predicted at 2008.
So did you ever seek out the origin of that statement and try to understand the context of it or did you just read it on some blog and accept it without any skepticism?
Climate models (or indeed any kind of scientific model) will never be perfect. It's impossible to model the full scale of reality.
When it comes to the big climate models (commonly called GCM's for General Circulation Model or Global Climate Model) they don't use temperature data as inputs or even use the trends derived from temperature records to develop their algorithms. The models are as much as possible based on physical characteristics of the climate system and at least theoretically you could start them anywhere and they would eventually converge on the real climate. The only use that temperature data has for climate models is something to compare their results against.
I wouldn't say it's the climate scientists are the ones promoting the consensus argument. Scientists don't waste much time thinking about consensus. In science it's something that just happens organically when scientists don't argue with each other over a point. In climate science the IPCC AR5 WG1 report is a good summary of the current consensus.
Nuclear energy's problem is not that liberals are against it, it's that it's hard to make nuclear power work economically. Nuclear power couldn't compete against coal power, it can't compete against natural gas power and it's quickly becoming true that it can't compete against solar and wind power either except perhaps in the base load area.
Show us *evidence* for human made global warming, or shut the fuck up!
The evidence has been nicely summarized for you in the IPCC WG1 report. You may have to do some work to educate yourself enough to understand it though.
It's kind of unfortunate that they were named greenhouse gases because they don't work like a greenhouse at all. A greenhouse heats up mostly by impeding the convective transfer of heat energy. Greenhouse gases heat up the planet by impeding the radiative transfer of heat energy.
So just because a bunch of really smart people who have spent their adult lives studying something say that something is so, doesn't make it so.
That is true but if you make a habit of betting against them in the absence of some pretty strong evidence you're going to be a loser far more than a winner of those bets.
I'm sorry but you're going to have to prove that surface temperature measurements a "being adjusted after the fact to fit theory". A lot of people assert that but they never bother to seek out the scientific explanations for those adjustments. Here is a blog post about the reasons and methods for adjustments to the surface temperature record with cites to relevant peer reviewed papers about it. If you want to claim the adjustments to surface temperature records are invalid that is the information you need to refute.
What about corrections for changes in the instrument doing the measuring or corrections for changes in the time of day of the measurement? The UHI correction is just correcting for a known bias in the measurement.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't matter when a climate model was created. You can run them for any time period regardless.
Keep in mind that when I say they work on a 30 year average you're going to have to wait until 2029 to determine what the actual 30 year average for 2014 is so you have something to compare to climate model output.
If you're wondering where the 30 year time period comes from it's defined as the classical climatological period by the World Meteorological Organization and thus is the standard period used by climatologists. It might be a bit arbitrary but you couldn't shorten it by more than 2 or 3 years without starting to run into problems caused by short term variability.
It's not likely that volcanic or tectonic activity has much of anything to do with it. Even the largest volcanic eruption of the past 100 years, Mt. Pinatubo in 1991 emitted only 42 megatonnes of CO2, only 0.2% of the 23 gigatonnes emitted by human activities that year.
A little more critical thinking would be in order. It's not the absolute change which is something life can adapt to but the rate of change which can cause a lot of devastation before life has the time to adapt.
I've got anecdotes too. Here in the pacific northwest it's been a hot, dry summer. IIRC twice as many days of 90 F or above than normal.
Our entire civilization has been built on stable climates
lol.
Your laughter just shows how little you understand the truth in that statement.
I'm not an expert - I try to find out what percentage of CO2 that goes into the atmosphere every year is attributed to human activity and I can't get a definite answer.
It's the wrong question. We know from the Carbon Cycle that large amounts of carbon cycle between the various reservoirs of carbon (atmosphere, ocean, land and biosphere) yearly but that doesn't change the total amount of carbon in the carbon cycle. The carbon cycle was pretty balanced for thousands of years with the CO2 level in the atmosphere remaining around 280 ppm. Human activity takes carbon that's been out of the active carbon cycle for millions of years and adds it back in. That is reflected in the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, the lowering pH of the oceans and some increased plant growth. Since 1830 atmospheric CO2 has risen from about 280 ppm to around 400 ppm now, a 40% increase. Nearly all of that increase is attributable to human emissions.
The basic relationship between change in temperature and change in CO2 levels was stated by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It says the change in temperature = Ln * (current CO2 level/starting CO2 level) * a constant. That doesn't require a computer to calculate.
We can't even start a discussion until you actually accept reality ...
We also can't start a discussion about models until you demonstrate an understanding of what models are capable of in the first place. Current models are better than any other method we have for projection future climate.
The full name is "Climate Science Denier". It's funny how the only people making the connection from climate science denier to holocaust denier are the climate science deniers. It must be a defensive tactic.
When the climate change topic comes up, my brain automatically translates that the punitive corrective measures bandied about over the years...
The only corrective measure that works in the long run is to reduce CO2 emissions to near zero. How you get there isn't important as long as you do. So if you don't like the proposed solutions come up with your own keeping in mind the ultimate goal.
Yet, basing your argument on science models that can predict the climate 10 years into the future yet somehow can't predict the climate tomorrow...
Climate models don't even project 10 years into the future well, they work more on 30 year time scales. What happens tomorrow is weather, not climate. An analogy is rolling dice. You can't very well predict the results of one or even a few tosses of the dice but you can make a pretty good estimation of the results of 10,000 tosses.
You haven't reviewed the data, you can't, its not public, ...
Any time I see someone claiming this I know they haven't tried themselves and they're just repeating something they read on a blog somewhere. It makes it easy for me to dismiss their post.
The hiatus still continues.
And yes there is a hiatus nowdays even in the mainstream pro-agw camp, saying otherwise makes you a denier.
And the climate science deniers continue to believe that if the current theory is correct that temperatures should rise in lockstep with rises in greenhouse gases like the output of a manual transmission in relation to the input.
They didn't use the word "consensus" once in that editorial.) But I can see how you take that from it. That a consensus exists is not by itself an indictment of the science. If it just develops organically when they (nearly) all realize they agree about something then it's healthy. In any scientific field if more than 90% of the practitioners agree about something I'm going with them.
To quote: "Entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years". Predicted at 2008.
So did you ever seek out the origin of that statement and try to understand the context of it or did you just read it on some blog and accept it without any skepticism?
Climate models (or indeed any kind of scientific model) will never be perfect. It's impossible to model the full scale of reality.
When it comes to the big climate models (commonly called GCM's for General Circulation Model or Global Climate Model) they don't use temperature data as inputs or even use the trends derived from temperature records to develop their algorithms. The models are as much as possible based on physical characteristics of the climate system and at least theoretically you could start them anywhere and they would eventually converge on the real climate. The only use that temperature data has for climate models is something to compare their results against.
There's a reason we have different words for the different phases of H2O.
I wouldn't say it's the climate scientists are the ones promoting the consensus argument. Scientists don't waste much time thinking about consensus. In science it's something that just happens organically when scientists don't argue with each other over a point. In climate science the IPCC AR5 WG1 report is a good summary of the current consensus.
"Observed reality" is not always that easy to interpret simply using "common sense".
Can I join?
Nuclear's problem is that it is one of the most expensive ways to produce power. It has little to do with Luddites.
Nuclear energy's problem is not that liberals are against it, it's that it's hard to make nuclear power work economically. Nuclear power couldn't compete against coal power, it can't compete against natural gas power and it's quickly becoming true that it can't compete against solar and wind power either except perhaps in the base load area.
Show us *evidence* for human made global warming, or shut the fuck up!
The evidence has been nicely summarized for you in the IPCC WG1 report. You may have to do some work to educate yourself enough to understand it though.
It's kind of unfortunate that they were named greenhouse gases because they don't work like a greenhouse at all. A greenhouse heats up mostly by impeding the convective transfer of heat energy. Greenhouse gases heat up the planet by impeding the radiative transfer of heat energy.
So just because a bunch of really smart people who have spent their adult lives studying something say that something is so, doesn't make it so.
That is true but if you make a habit of betting against them in the absence of some pretty strong evidence you're going to be a loser far more than a winner of those bets.
I'm sorry but you're going to have to prove that surface temperature measurements a "being adjusted after the fact to fit theory". A lot of people assert that but they never bother to seek out the scientific explanations for those adjustments. Here is a blog post about the reasons and methods for adjustments to the surface temperature record with cites to relevant peer reviewed papers about it. If you want to claim the adjustments to surface temperature records are invalid that is the information you need to refute.
What about corrections for changes in the instrument doing the measuring or corrections for changes in the time of day of the measurement? The UHI correction is just correcting for a known bias in the measurement.