And nowadays, the divergence between climate models and climate is very large after just a decade or two.
You may call the divergence large but it is still within the published uncertainty ranges of the model output. Until temperatures get outside of that range and remain outside of that range it's impossible to say the climate models are wrong.
So will you accept science, or is the cognitive dissonance giving you problems if it disagrees with your pre-determined world view?
George Box famously said (not an exact quote) "All models are wrong but some are useful."
Your 2nd cite to the Nature article does not support your argument that models are wrong. There are a lot of quasi-cyclical phenomena that are unpredictable ahead of time (with our current state of knowledge but maybe never) but that show up as emergent properties with random timing in climate model runs. The article shows that when you pick the model runs where by chance the emergent Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation timing matched the real world that the model matched real world temperatures much better. That is solid evidence that the models do a good job of modeling the real world.
People like you must think that climate changes for magical reasons that are impossible to understand. Scientists on the other hand understand that in any physical system there are physical reasons for the changes they observe. For most scientists their whole reason for doing what they do is to better understand the physical processes that affect our world. It is a truism to say that climate is always changing but it's hand waving to say we can't understand why. Our whole civilization is built on our increasing understanding of the physical world based on the knowledge science gives us.
If you think what climate scientists tell us is a conspiracy to mislead us then it shouldn't be that hard scientifically to destroy their argument. The fact that after over 25 years of intense attention to the issue that hasn't been done is telling.
So RSS must be the only temperature record that is right because it shows what you want them to show. I won't claim it's wrong but it's still statistically insignificant.
What temperature series are you using to make that claim from? I went to WoodForTrees and plotted the different temperature series from 1997.0 to present and none of them showed 0 temperature rise in that period. The only one that was even close was the RSS Land Only global mean.
Since the minimum length for climatological analysis is 30 years I don't think 18 years is significant and as the statistical analysis I cited showed there is no statistically significant slowdown to the warming curve since 1970.
This is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. A group has no rights, period. Individuals have rights, those rights extend to where there are groups (see First Amendment). The idea that groups have rights is simply the mistake of the far left wing, and their "Group Politics", and a big reason why Civil Rights Movement has failed.
I agree with you that is an ignorant statement.
Regarding a group having no rights I agree with that too but it is at odds with the Citizens United decision that corporations have free speech rights in addition to the free speech rights of the individuals that make up the group that is the corporations. So I would say it's a mistake of the far right wing as well, just a different group they favor.
There is no cherry picking, its just an observation. If you start today and go back 18 years 4 months, the trend is DEAD FLAT.
However.... CO2 is most definitely NOT flat.
That argument only makes sense if you're claiming the high temperatures in 1998 were caused by CO2 rather than mostly the most extreme El Nino ever measured. In any rigorous statistical analysis you never start from an extreme point like 1998.
For a couple hundred bucks you can get your own meter and start measuring it yourself. You won't get exactly the same numbers as they get at Mauna Loa but if you keep a record of it over a period of time you will see the same amount of rise as they get.
Warming is obviously a lot more complex than CO2 levels, because warming has continued to basically flatline as it has for decades now.
You can only say that if you only look at the atmosphere and cherry pick the extremely hot year of 1998 (that was 2 sigmas above the temperature curve). As I calculated above if all of the heat that accumulated in the oceans between 2003 and 2012 were in the atmosphere instead we would have had over 16 degrees Celsius of temperature rise.
Not only that but if you do a statistical analysis of surface temperatures it's not possible to even show there's even been a slowdown in temperature rise. Tamino, a statistician by trade tried a number of different methods to show a slowdown statistically and failed. You can read about it here.
There is obviously plenty of complexity in the system but the underlying accumulation of heat energy continues unabated.
Who in their right mind situates an atmospheric sampling site in the middle of a chain of active volcanoes ?
The Mauna Loa CO2 series is often cited because it is the longest continuous record of CO2 in the atmosphere (since 1958). The occasional times that local CO2 from the volcano affects the measurement is obvious and they exclude those measurements from the record. But since then CO2 is also being measured at dozens of other locations around the globe and they all show relatively the same thing as Mauna Loa.
I'm sorry, but if you want to build a house at the beach, why should it be the government's business to stop you? It's your money, you should be able to spend it the way you want. Call 1 877 CASH NOW. Why would a government that doesn't stop you be necessarily corrupt?
As long as the Federal Government is underwriting flood insurance while not collecting enough to cover the costs it is the government's business. Why should the rest of us pay for other peoples recklessness.
You can't ignore the that's accumulating in the oceans. As I calculated above if all of the heat the oceans have accumulated since the Argo floats went online in the early 2000s had gone into the atmosphere only it would have meant over 16 degrees Celsius rise in atmospheric temperatures.
The current warming period hasn't been going on long enough for the abyssal ocean to notice the warming much yet. But the top 3 meters (10 feet) of the oceans holds as much heat at the whole atmosphere and the average depth of the oceans is around 3,700 meters. The Argo floats have been measuring ocean temperatures down to 2,000 meters since the early 2000s. This chart of ocean heat content shows the oceans down to 2,000 meters have accumulated nearly 10 x 10^22 joules of energy since about 2003. It takes about 5.95 x 10^21 joules to raise the temperature of the atmosphere 1 degree Celsius. 10 x 10^22/5.95 x 10^21 = 16.81. So if the heat that's accumulated in the top 2,000 meters of the oceans since the early 2000's was all in the atmosphere instead the temperature of the atmosphere would have risen about 16.81 degrees Celsius.
When you talk about the Earth's temperature you need to look at the whole geosystem including the atmosphere, the oceans and the land surface. Since about 93% of the accumulating heat from global warming goes into the oceans and they have continued warming the Earth's temperature has continued to increase.
No, if you had paid better attention you would understand what you've been told is that the variations that have been observed in the Sun's output are not enough to account for the changes in climate we've been seeing lately. At most the Sun accounts for 1% or 2% of the change.
The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the Ordovician-Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the IPCC theory is correct, there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation.
You can't ignore the fact that the Sun was dimmer back then and the topology of the continents was completely different. CO2 isn't the only factor in the Earth's climate, just the most important greenhouse gas in determining it. (If you want to chime in and claim that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, it's true that WV causes the largest effect of the greenhouse gases but WV is a condensing gas under conditions in the Earth's atmosphere and the level is strictly controlled by temperature. Water vapor can not drive climate change.)
Yes, an arbitrary number but humans tend to take note of round numbers more than others. While it's likely that the number will dip slightly below 400 ppm this coming (Northern Hemisphere) autumn and maybe in the autumn of 2016 after that no one currently alive will ever see the CO2 level drop below 400 ppm again.
There you have it ladies and gentlemen. The cited paper compares projections from two different IPCC reports (3 & 4) to observations of temperature and sea level rise up to 2011. mi is either too lazy to or not capable of understanding what is said in the paper. If he had he could have quibbled about the fact that they used multivariate correlation analysis to make adjustments for the effects of solar variation, volcanic aerosols and ENSO to adjust the temperatures before making the comparison for temperature. As far as mi's before and after requirement they are contained in the 30 references cited at the bottom of the paper. Actually this paper is better than having separate references since it does the comparison for you rather than forcing you to do the comparison yourself.
As riverat1 admits here, he "tangled" with me on this matter before — and was unable to offer suitable citations. Can you?
So what is your problem with this citation? It looks at IPCC predictions for temperature and sea level rise and compares them to observations up to 2011.
I think it's premature to say that CO2 hasn't cranked up the surface temperatures as much as has been predicted. There's a reason why the standard climatological period is 30 years.
If you're a climate scientist and you want to convince me, stop with the doom scenarios and start getting headlines of things more reasonable. I'm sick of hearing that because of global warming, I'm going to be dead in 5 years, just to read the exact same headline 5 years later.
You are obviously not paying attention to what actual scientists have actually said if you think they said you'd be dead in 5 years. Rather than listen to hyperbole why don't you use some of the critical thinking skills you should have learned in academia to analyze the situation.
Don't expect much out of mi. I tangled with him about his request to list 2 or 3 successful predictions back in March and gave him a link to this paper which compares IPCC AR3 & AR4 predictions for temperature and sea level rise to current (2011) observations.
Slashdot Mirror
And nowadays, the divergence between climate models and climate is very large after just a decade or two.
You may call the divergence large but it is still within the published uncertainty ranges of the model output. Until temperatures get outside of that range and remain outside of that range it's impossible to say the climate models are wrong.
Multiple studies have shown that the climate models are wrong.
So will you accept science, or is the cognitive dissonance giving you problems if it disagrees with your pre-determined world view?
George Box famously said (not an exact quote) "All models are wrong but some are useful."
Your 2nd cite to the Nature article does not support your argument that models are wrong. There are a lot of quasi-cyclical phenomena that are unpredictable ahead of time (with our current state of knowledge but maybe never) but that show up as emergent properties with random timing in climate model runs. The article shows that when you pick the model runs where by chance the emergent Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation timing matched the real world that the model matched real world temperatures much better. That is solid evidence that the models do a good job of modeling the real world.
People like you must think that climate changes for magical reasons that are impossible to understand. Scientists on the other hand understand that in any physical system there are physical reasons for the changes they observe. For most scientists their whole reason for doing what they do is to better understand the physical processes that affect our world. It is a truism to say that climate is always changing but it's hand waving to say we can't understand why. Our whole civilization is built on our increasing understanding of the physical world based on the knowledge science gives us.
If you think what climate scientists tell us is a conspiracy to mislead us then it shouldn't be that hard scientifically to destroy their argument. The fact that after over 25 years of intense attention to the issue that hasn't been done is telling.
So RSS must be the only temperature record that is right because it shows what you want them to show. I won't claim it's wrong but it's still statistically insignificant.
What temperature series are you using to make that claim from? I went to WoodForTrees and plotted the different temperature series from 1997.0 to present and none of them showed 0 temperature rise in that period. The only one that was even close was the RSS Land Only global mean.
Since the minimum length for climatological analysis is 30 years I don't think 18 years is significant and as the statistical analysis I cited showed there is no statistically significant slowdown to the warming curve since 1970.
This is the most ignorant statement I have ever heard. A group has no rights, period. Individuals have rights, those rights extend to where there are groups (see First Amendment). The idea that groups have rights is simply the mistake of the far left wing, and their "Group Politics", and a big reason why Civil Rights Movement has failed.
I agree with you that is an ignorant statement.
Regarding a group having no rights I agree with that too but it is at odds with the Citizens United decision that corporations have free speech rights in addition to the free speech rights of the individuals that make up the group that is the corporations. So I would say it's a mistake of the far right wing as well, just a different group they favor.
Why so scared to admit it has flatlined in the last 18 years?
Even if you are right and its just a pause... IT IS A PAUSE.
Statistically speaking it's not even a pause.
There is no cherry picking, its just an observation. If you start today and go back 18 years 4 months, the trend is DEAD FLAT.
However.... CO2 is most definitely NOT flat.
That argument only makes sense if you're claiming the high temperatures in 1998 were caused by CO2 rather than mostly the most extreme El Nino ever measured. In any rigorous statistical analysis you never start from an extreme point like 1998.
For a couple hundred bucks you can get your own meter and start measuring it yourself. You won't get exactly the same numbers as they get at Mauna Loa but if you keep a record of it over a period of time you will see the same amount of rise as they get.
Warming is obviously a lot more complex than CO2 levels, because warming has continued to basically flatline as it has for decades now.
You can only say that if you only look at the atmosphere and cherry pick the extremely hot year of 1998 (that was 2 sigmas above the temperature curve). As I calculated above if all of the heat that accumulated in the oceans between 2003 and 2012 were in the atmosphere instead we would have had over 16 degrees Celsius of temperature rise.
Not only that but if you do a statistical analysis of surface temperatures it's not possible to even show there's even been a slowdown in temperature rise. Tamino, a statistician by trade tried a number of different methods to show a slowdown statistically and failed. You can read about it here.
There is obviously plenty of complexity in the system but the underlying accumulation of heat energy continues unabated.
Who in their right mind situates an atmospheric sampling site in the middle of a chain of active volcanoes ?
The Mauna Loa CO2 series is often cited because it is the longest continuous record of CO2 in the atmosphere (since 1958). The occasional times that local CO2 from the volcano affects the measurement is obvious and they exclude those measurements from the record. But since then CO2 is also being measured at dozens of other locations around the globe and they all show relatively the same thing as Mauna Loa.
I'm sorry, but if you want to build a house at the beach, why should it be the government's business to stop you? It's your money, you should be able to spend it the way you want. Call 1 877 CASH NOW. Why would a government that doesn't stop you be necessarily corrupt?
As long as the Federal Government is underwriting flood insurance while not collecting enough to cover the costs it is the government's business. Why should the rest of us pay for other peoples recklessness.
You can't ignore the that's accumulating in the oceans. As I calculated above if all of the heat the oceans have accumulated since the Argo floats went online in the early 2000s had gone into the atmosphere only it would have meant over 16 degrees Celsius rise in atmospheric temperatures.
The USA = about 3% of the Earth's surface.
The current warming period hasn't been going on long enough for the abyssal ocean to notice the warming much yet. But the top 3 meters (10 feet) of the oceans holds as much heat at the whole atmosphere and the average depth of the oceans is around 3,700 meters. The Argo floats have been measuring ocean temperatures down to 2,000 meters since the early 2000s. This chart of ocean heat content shows the oceans down to 2,000 meters have accumulated nearly 10 x 10^22 joules of energy since about 2003. It takes about 5.95 x 10^21 joules to raise the temperature of the atmosphere 1 degree Celsius. 10 x 10^22/5.95 x 10^21 = 16.81. So if the heat that's accumulated in the top 2,000 meters of the oceans since the early 2000's was all in the atmosphere instead the temperature of the atmosphere would have risen about 16.81 degrees Celsius.
When you talk about the Earth's temperature you need to look at the whole geosystem including the atmosphere, the oceans and the land surface. Since about 93% of the accumulating heat from global warming goes into the oceans and they have continued warming the Earth's temperature has continued to increase.
No, if you had paid better attention you would understand what you've been told is that the variations that have been observed in the Sun's output are not enough to account for the changes in climate we've been seeing lately. At most the Sun accounts for 1% or 2% of the change.
The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is to be found during the Ordovician-Silurian and the Jurassic-Cretaceous periods when CO2 levels were greater than 4000 ppmv (parts per million by volume) and about 2000 ppmv respectively. If the IPCC theory is correct, there should have been runaway greenhouse induced global warming during these periods but instead there was glaciation.
You can't ignore the fact that the Sun was dimmer back then and the topology of the continents was completely different. CO2 isn't the only factor in the Earth's climate, just the most important greenhouse gas in determining it. (If you want to chime in and claim that water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, it's true that WV causes the largest effect of the greenhouse gases but WV is a condensing gas under conditions in the Earth's atmosphere and the level is strictly controlled by temperature. Water vapor can not drive climate change.)
Yes, an arbitrary number but humans tend to take note of round numbers more than others. While it's likely that the number will dip slightly below 400 ppm this coming (Northern Hemisphere) autumn and maybe in the autumn of 2016 after that no one currently alive will ever see the CO2 level drop below 400 ppm again.
There you have it ladies and gentlemen. The cited paper compares projections from two different IPCC reports (3 & 4) to observations of temperature and sea level rise up to 2011. mi is either too lazy to or not capable of understanding what is said in the paper. If he had he could have quibbled about the fact that they used multivariate correlation analysis to make adjustments for the effects of solar variation, volcanic aerosols and ENSO to adjust the temperatures before making the comparison for temperature. As far as mi's before and after requirement they are contained in the 30 references cited at the bottom of the paper. Actually this paper is better than having separate references since it does the comparison for you rather than forcing you to do the comparison yourself.
I see ... You care more about form than function. I've had teachers like that in the past.
As riverat1 admits here, he "tangled" with me on this matter before — and was unable to offer suitable citations. Can you?
So what is your problem with this citation? It looks at IPCC predictions for temperature and sea level rise and compares them to observations up to 2011.
Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011 [iop.org] (Rahmstorf, Foster, Cazenave, Environmental Research Letters 2012)
Sanders is running as a Democrat.
I think it's premature to say that CO2 hasn't cranked up the surface temperatures as much as has been predicted. There's a reason why the standard climatological period is 30 years.
If you're a climate scientist and you want to convince me, stop with the doom scenarios and start getting headlines of things more reasonable. I'm sick of hearing that because of global warming, I'm going to be dead in 5 years, just to read the exact same headline 5 years later.
You are obviously not paying attention to what actual scientists have actually said if you think they said you'd be dead in 5 years. Rather than listen to hyperbole why don't you use some of the critical thinking skills you should have learned in academia to analyze the situation.
Don't expect much out of mi. I tangled with him about his request to list 2 or 3 successful predictions back in March and gave him a link to this paper which compares IPCC AR3 & AR4 predictions for temperature and sea level rise to current (2011) observations.
Comparing climate projections to observations up to 2011 (Rahmstorf, Foster, Cazenave, Environmental Research Letters 2012)
He wouldn't accept it apparently because it wasn't formatted exactly as he requested. Apparently he won't take yes for an answer.