How prey tell do you propose we measure the temperature of an entire planet with a majority of thermometers, the liquid in glass type, sparely and unevenly located and only recording the minimal and maximal temperatures; thermometers that are graduated to the degree and rounded off to the half degree?
It's called sampling and it's been shown to work quite well in other situations.
If we used those very expensive satellites, it would show there has been no warming for the last 18 years, which is very hard to explain.
Of course you've ignored the fact that the UAH satellite lower troposphere temperatures have been setting new records for the past 6 months.
The complexity of deriving temperatures from satellite measurement of microwave emissions of O2 is orders of magnitude greater than measuring at the surface with thermometers.
I'm not cherry picking these... that is the oldest temp from that station and the most recent temp posted into the website from that station.
This is my city. This is where I live.
Look at the first graph. Notice how the climate is basically identical to the second graph.
I'm not questioning that there is warming. I'm just not seeing it whenever I look at individual stations that I'm aware of. You tell me "well this station in Siberia has really changed"... I don't know anything about that station. All I can audit is what I am aware of in my area. And every time I've checked any of them the return is always a fat load of nothing.
To make the kind of analysis you're trying to do it's not enough to just eyeball some graphs. You have to go download the actual numbers, correct any biases introduced by things such as station moves, instrument changes, changes in time of observation and the build up of the urban area. Then you can make a useful comparison of of the data for climate purposes.
Specific causes are mainly a combination of anthropogenic global warming and a major El Nino adding a spike on it. There are other lesser things to factor in.
The timing and strength of El Ninos is not predictable in advance so any general climate model run would not capture that. If after the fact you force a climate model to follow the actual timing and strength of the El Nino they get pretty accurate.
The point about TFA is all fossil fuels would be gone in a decade.
I think the point of TFA is that it would be possible to phase out fossil fuels in a decade with enough effort, not that we would do it. To me a decade is extremely optimistic but I could see them mostly phased out in 20 years and gone except for specialized applications in 30 years.
My comment had to do with the meta-study that quantifies the strength of agreement among climate scientists, not climate science itself. It wouldn't be that hard to redo that study and do a survey of the literature and rate the level of support for AGW.
As far as climate models, they don't have AGW built into them. They should work regardless of whether AGW is real or not. I guess running them without allowing the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere to affect them would be akin to running them without AGW. As you said, that doesn't work. I'm not convinced that climate models have predicted more warming than we've seen. Most judgements that say that are comparing too short a time scale and fail to take into account the noise of natural variability and it's ability to override the global warming signal on short time scales.
As George Box famously said "All models are wrong, but some are useful."
Actually they pretty much have when you take into account the scale of the noise of natural variation relative to the signal of global warming. There are of course other factors.
You should watch this lecture that Richard Alley gave at the 2009 AGU meeting on The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History. It covers the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere from over 4 billion years ago. I have my doubts you have enough attention span to sit through all 57 minutes of it but it could do you some good if you did.
Not only are we going to sail right by 500 PPM, I expect 600 PPM will come and go without much of an issue. We might slow the rise, but the picture isn't going to change.
I'm not sure we'll make it to 600 ppm. Long before we get there I would expect civilization to collapse and billions of people around the world to die of starvation and wars. If we hit 600 ppm you can pretty much guarantee over 100 feet of sea level rise although it will take centuries to get there.
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
It's true that the yearly flux between the air, water and soil carbon reservoirs is far greater than yearly human emissions. But what is also true is the year to year increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is less than half of yearly human emissions. So how would you explain how we can emit more CO2 than the year to year increase in atmospheric CO2 and not be responsible for it?
As soon as you get to a point where someone says, "We know X because we voted and have consensus," the chain of reproducibility has been broken.
Oh good lord! Do you seriously think climate scientists got together and voted on a consensus? The claims of consensus come from outside the climate science community from a review of what they are publishing. In science consensus is something that happens organically when so many scientists accept a point that only the cranks argue about it any more. I doubt scientists spend much time thinking about consensus. It's something for outsiders to use to judge the degree of certainty about things in a scientific field.
I'm not a denier nor a supporter, but this is bullshit. How about we have a good solid review of the facts and not a consensus of like-minded people. I personally believe that humans have an impact, but the percentage may be low based on previous figures that i have seen. Regardless, let me see some real data backed up by real science instead of this sensationalist bullshit.
If you want a good solid review of climate science all you have to do is read the IPCC reports.
You forgot option 4 (not mutually exclusive with the other options): Researching methods to actively cool the planet, by increasing albedo, blocking insolation, etc.
You know, it really doesn't matter whether the warming is anthropogenic or not. The planet is warming, and that's bad for us. We know that Earth has been much hotter than it is now, and much colder than it is now, and neither extreme is pleasant for humans. Until fairly recently we assumed that temperature changes happened slowly, but ice core records from the last couple of decades show that's not true, that the planet experiences very rapid temperature changes, even without our help. The climate is not, has never been, and will never be naturally stable.
Which points out a reason that perhaps it *does* matter that the warming is anthropogenic, because if we can affect the climate accidentally we can also affect it deliberately. The answer to global climate change -- from whatever source, and whether it's warming or cooling -- is to learn how to engineer the climate, to stabilize it around weather patterns that we find comfortable. We've made a start by learning to warm it (though we're far from a full understanding of exactly how we've done it). Now we need to start learning how to cool it. The scale of such planetary engineering is beyond anything we've yet done, but it's not beyond what we can do if we try.
The problem with blocking insolation is that it will reduce the productivity of the biosphere, specifically photosynthetic plants. At the same time it doesn't do anything to stop ocean acidification.
Obama has recently announced plans to allow another one to be built, but the environmentalists aren't happy, and who knows if (or when) it will ever happen. Might be in the 2030s if we are lucky. And ask yourself, what else in our society requires an approval from the president just to start? What a mess...
There are currently 4 nuclear power plants being built (look up Vogtle and V.C.Summer), all approved under Obama. I believe at least one of the Vogtle plants is scheduled to come on-line before 2020.
There are at least 4 nuclear power plants being built in the USA and I don't know how many but a bunch in China. The problem nuclear power has is the cost and it's difficult to get financing for them without government subsidies.
Those proofs will come right after the climate change evangelists prove that warming is caused by man.
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This was found by John Tyndall in the 1950s. 2) Human burning of fossil fuels is responsible for the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. This is easily shown by the fact that the year to year rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is less than half the total year to year human emissions of CO2.
Of course a carbon tax is one of the simplest market based solutions there are. Put a cost on carbon and the market will naturally look for ways to reduce cost by reducing carbon usage.
You misunderstand the nature of consensus in science. It's not something that scientists get together and decide on. Rather it happens organically when the vast majority of scientists in a field no longer argue about a point but just accept it and move on to other things they can argue about.
With the global warming that's already occurred sea level rise is inevitable. Even if we stopped temperature rises today it would take several hundred years for the great ice sheets to reach a new equilibrium and for sea level to stop rising and I doubt that means less than 10 or 20 feet of rise. OTOH an asteroid strike or supervolcano eruption is a rare event. I do believe we should put more into searching for potential asteroid strikes. A supervolcano eruption is unlikely to happen without several months warning so plenty of time to evacuate people. When Mt. St. Helens blew in 1980 there were at least 2 months of activity before the big eruption.
Slashdot Mirror
How prey tell do you propose we measure the temperature of an entire planet with a majority of thermometers, the liquid in glass type, sparely and unevenly located and only recording the minimal and maximal temperatures; thermometers that are graduated to the degree and rounded off to the half degree?
It's called sampling and it's been shown to work quite well in other situations.
If we used those very expensive satellites, it would show there has been no warming for the last 18 years, which is very hard to explain.
Of course you've ignored the fact that the UAH satellite lower troposphere temperatures have been setting new records for the past 6 months.
The complexity of deriving temperatures from satellite measurement of microwave emissions of O2 is orders of magnitude greater than measuring at the surface with thermometers.
There are cranks on both sides of the issue. Professor Wadhams predictions weren't supported by the vast majority of scientists in the field.
Exactly... and here is why:
http://www.climatestations.com...
https://www.climatestations.co...
I'm not cherry picking these... that is the oldest temp from that station and the most recent temp posted into the website from that station.
This is my city. This is where I live.
Look at the first graph. Notice how the climate is basically identical to the second graph.
I'm not questioning that there is warming. I'm just not seeing it whenever I look at individual stations that I'm aware of. You tell me "well this station in Siberia has really changed"... I don't know anything about that station. All I can audit is what I am aware of in my area. And every time I've checked any of them the return is always a fat load of nothing.
To make the kind of analysis you're trying to do it's not enough to just eyeball some graphs. You have to go download the actual numbers, correct any biases introduced by things such as station moves, instrument changes, changes in time of observation and the build up of the urban area. Then you can make a useful comparison of of the data for climate purposes.
Nobody gives a shit. Not even the people who pretend to.
If you're young enough you're going to start giving a shit whether you want to or not.
Specific causes are mainly a combination of anthropogenic global warming and a major El Nino adding a spike on it. There are other lesser things to factor in.
The timing and strength of El Ninos is not predictable in advance so any general climate model run would not capture that. If after the fact you force a climate model to follow the actual timing and strength of the El Nino they get pretty accurate.
Insolation is shorthand for Incoming Solar Radiation. It has nothing to do with insulation.
And you're ignoring the fact that the year to year global increase in atmospheric CO2 is less than half of total human emissions.
The point about TFA is all fossil fuels would be gone in a decade.
I think the point of TFA is that it would be possible to phase out fossil fuels in a decade with enough effort, not that we would do it. To me a decade is extremely optimistic but I could see them mostly phased out in 20 years and gone except for specialized applications in 30 years.
My comment had to do with the meta-study that quantifies the strength of agreement among climate scientists, not climate science itself. It wouldn't be that hard to redo that study and do a survey of the literature and rate the level of support for AGW.
As far as climate models, they don't have AGW built into them. They should work regardless of whether AGW is real or not. I guess running them without allowing the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere to affect them would be akin to running them without AGW. As you said, that doesn't work. I'm not convinced that climate models have predicted more warming than we've seen. Most judgements that say that are comparing too short a time scale and fail to take into account the noise of natural variability and it's ability to override the global warming signal on short time scales.
As George Box famously said "All models are wrong, but some are useful."
Actually they pretty much have when you take into account the scale of the noise of natural variation relative to the signal of global warming. There are of course other factors.
You should watch this lecture that Richard Alley gave at the 2009 AGU meeting on The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History. It covers the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere from over 4 billion years ago. I have my doubts you have enough attention span to sit through all 57 minutes of it but it could do you some good if you did.
Not only are we going to sail right by 500 PPM, I expect 600 PPM will come and go without much of an issue. We might slow the rise, but the picture isn't going to change.
I'm not sure we'll make it to 600 ppm. Long before we get there I would expect civilization to collapse and billions of people around the world to die of starvation and wars. If we hit 600 ppm you can pretty much guarantee over 100 feet of sea level rise although it will take centuries to get there.
If climate change is real, then fucking act on it, enough with the goddamn grandstanding.
Unfortunately in the USA there is a political party that is dead set against acting on it and that has enough power to make that stick.
I just had to comment on this:
“The quantity of CO2 we produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between air, water and soil I am doing a detailed assessment of the UN IPCC reports and the Summaries for Policy Makers, identifying the way in which the Summaries have distorted the science.” – South African Nuclear Physicist and Chemical Engineer Dr. Philip Lloyd, a UN IPCC co-coordinating lead author who has authored over 150 refereed publications.
It's true that the yearly flux between the air, water and soil carbon reservoirs is far greater than yearly human emissions. But what is also true is the year to year increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is less than half of yearly human emissions. So how would you explain how we can emit more CO2 than the year to year increase in atmospheric CO2 and not be responsible for it?
consensus means that it based on opinion, science is NOT opinion!!
and meta-studies are utter shit, just cherry picking for wanted answer.
Consensus in science means something that scientists don't waste their time arguing about because the (nearly) all agree about it.
As soon as you get to a point where someone says, "We know X because we voted and have consensus," the chain of reproducibility has been broken.
Oh good lord! Do you seriously think climate scientists got together and voted on a consensus? The claims of consensus come from outside the climate science community from a review of what they are publishing. In science consensus is something that happens organically when so many scientists accept a point that only the cranks argue about it any more. I doubt scientists spend much time thinking about consensus. It's something for outsiders to use to judge the degree of certainty about things in a scientific field.
Yes, I know you've got a bug about the TOA imbalance but if the climate modelers are comfortable with what they're doing then it works for me.
I'm not a denier nor a supporter, but this is bullshit. How about we have a good solid review of the facts and not a consensus of like-minded people. I personally believe that humans have an impact, but the percentage may be low based on previous figures that i have seen. Regardless, let me see some real data backed up by real science instead of this sensationalist bullshit.
If you want a good solid review of climate science all you have to do is read the IPCC reports.
You forgot option 4 (not mutually exclusive with the other options): Researching methods to actively cool the planet, by increasing albedo, blocking insolation, etc.
You know, it really doesn't matter whether the warming is anthropogenic or not. The planet is warming, and that's bad for us. We know that Earth has been much hotter than it is now, and much colder than it is now, and neither extreme is pleasant for humans. Until fairly recently we assumed that temperature changes happened slowly, but ice core records from the last couple of decades show that's not true, that the planet experiences very rapid temperature changes, even without our help. The climate is not, has never been, and will never be naturally stable.
Which points out a reason that perhaps it *does* matter that the warming is anthropogenic, because if we can affect the climate accidentally we can also affect it deliberately. The answer to global climate change -- from whatever source, and whether it's warming or cooling -- is to learn how to engineer the climate, to stabilize it around weather patterns that we find comfortable. We've made a start by learning to warm it (though we're far from a full understanding of exactly how we've done it). Now we need to start learning how to cool it. The scale of such planetary engineering is beyond anything we've yet done, but it's not beyond what we can do if we try.
The problem with blocking insolation is that it will reduce the productivity of the biosphere, specifically photosynthetic plants. At the same time it doesn't do anything to stop ocean acidification.
the only reason it is expensive is because of the draconian regulatory structure. Not to mention there aren't trillions in green energy subsidies.
Nuclear power subsidies are in government coverage of liability over a certain amount and sometimes loan guarantees during construction.
Obama has recently announced plans to allow another one to be built, but the environmentalists aren't happy, and who knows if (or when) it will ever happen. Might be in the 2030s if we are lucky. And ask yourself, what else in our society requires an approval from the president just to start? What a mess...
There are currently 4 nuclear power plants being built (look up Vogtle and V.C.Summer), all approved under Obama. I believe at least one of the Vogtle plants is scheduled to come on-line before 2020.
There are at least 4 nuclear power plants being built in the USA and I don't know how many but a bunch in China. The problem nuclear power has is the cost and it's difficult to get financing for them without government subsidies.
Those proofs will come right after the climate change evangelists prove that warming is caused by man.
1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This was found by John Tyndall in the 1950s.
2) Human burning of fossil fuels is responsible for the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. This is easily shown by the fact that the year to year rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is less than half the total year to year human emissions of CO2.
What more do you need?
Of course a carbon tax is one of the simplest market based solutions there are. Put a cost on carbon and the market will naturally look for ways to reduce cost by reducing carbon usage.
You misunderstand the nature of consensus in science. It's not something that scientists get together and decide on. Rather it happens organically when the vast majority of scientists in a field no longer argue about a point but just accept it and move on to other things they can argue about.
With the global warming that's already occurred sea level rise is inevitable. Even if we stopped temperature rises today it would take several hundred years for the great ice sheets to reach a new equilibrium and for sea level to stop rising and I doubt that means less than 10 or 20 feet of rise. OTOH an asteroid strike or supervolcano eruption is a rare event. I do believe we should put more into searching for potential asteroid strikes. A supervolcano eruption is unlikely to happen without several months warning so plenty of time to evacuate people. When Mt. St. Helens blew in 1980 there were at least 2 months of activity before the big eruption.