I would like to kvetch that by picking a 120 month average for a data set that only spans 420 months
Yeah. There is an 11 year cycle. A 120 year moving average smooths this out so you can see the long term trend. The data only goes back to the late 70's since it is derived from satellites. You can use sunspot count as a pretty good proxy and get something quite a bit longer: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/s...
This 120 year moving average is the method that was used to promote the solar/temperature link in the 80's. You can get a pretty good match for much of the last century, but it falls apart in recent decades.
You can now see that the "dive" in the end of the data as you graphed it is simply the variation in solar minima-- and since there are only three solar minima in the data set, this is not significant.
Probably you are right. To the extent that the change in solar irradiance is significant, the recent effect has been to cool the planet. That means that the larger significance you give to changes in solar irradiance the more difficult it becomes to explain the recent warming.
the people producing this tool are not scientists. So I am not attacking scientists, just people that continue the hype without substance.
The annotations are added by scientists. If you really are against hype and pro-science then you will be a fan of this site. You really should take a few minutes to check it out. Your preconceptions will be challenged.
Fair and balanced would be to allow flat Earthers an equal say? We need stories on slashdot questioning evolution or linking vaccines to autism? Maybe a nerd site can just go with the science on these topics.
Variability in solar output does not account for the changes seen in the climate.
Right. On top of that, solar output has been dropping since the 80's. To the extent that it does have an effect, it has been a cooling effect for the last 4 decades. - http://woodfortrees.org/plot/p...
if no reputable scientists are saying that climate change is a death sentence, why do articles like the one below keep appearing?
Probably because they are written by the media, not by scientists. That is why this new initiative is so great. Scientists can weigh in on the claims of an article and give you a clearer picture of where there is hyperbole and where there is a real concern.
why is the CO2 increasing rather than plants doing more converting and keeping the number stable?
Increased plant growth is thought to be sinking about 20-25% of our carbon emissions. So it does have something of a dampening effect. - http://theconversation.com/pla...
You can't just add water to the atmosphere. Cold air will not hold much water. The water vapour capacity of air increases as the temperature increases. Warmer air means more humidity means warmer air. It's a feedback.
When people point to a 15 year stabilization of temperatures [noaa.gov] as evidence in the climate change debate, the frequent response is "that's not climate, that's weather" or "that's normal variation."
That is because we can quantify the variation. If you subtract ENSO and PDO (which are largely responsible for the variation) from the temperature trend you get a fairly monotonous rise in temperatures.
really need to do proper third party accounting on the carbon emissions of imported electricity
A carbon tax with 100 percent dividend, levied at the point of entry of first point of sale would address imported carbon and allow the marketplace, not politicians, to make investment decisions. It would also allow a reduction in sales and income taxes - two things we ought to be encouraging rather than taxing.
For the record, there actually was never a civil war where one side fought for the right to own white people under the banner of a "black power" flag. Also, there is not to this day (nor was there ever) a state that still flies that flag of white oppression.
It could give us a decade or more of reduced warming. The downside is that when the sun returns to normal output we will have accelerated warming. It may give us false confidence in the short term only to bite us in the long run.
But the paper in question didn't make any predictions about climate. It predicted that solar output would be low over the next few cycles. It was the journalists (and denial websites) who were looking for a hook and jumped to "The ice age is upon us!" Phil Plait is correcting the journalists by referencing the science. If solar output does remain low, the impact to global temperatures will be minimal.
The technology enables us to lie more effectively. We can find whatever truth we desire:
"The anti-vaccine agitators can always find a renegade researcher or random “study” to back them up. This is erudition in the age of cyberspace: You surf until you reach the conclusion you’re after. You click your way to validation, confusing the presence of a website with the plausibility of an argument.
Although the Internet could be making all of us smarter, it makes many of us stupider, because it’s not just a magnet for the curious. It’s a sinkhole for the gullible. - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07...
1) Yeah. that's what I said. €1 billion/year just on adaptation.
2) Scientists expect somewhere between 2-6 feet of sea level rise by 2100. Models show something closer to the low end (see Pfeffer et al. 2008; Horton et al. (2008)), but they assume no changes in ice sheet dynamics, which is known to be an iffy assumption (Overpeck et al., 2006). Empirical techniques show something closer to the high end (see Grinsted et al., 2009; Rahmstorf, 2007; Vermeer and Rahmstorf, 2009). Planning for 4.5 is not really all that cautious.
The court didn't specify a policy or a remedy, so it is hard to see how you would consider this a 'lefty' judiciary. You can't assume that just because the court accepts the science that they are 'lefty'. It is not universal that conservatives reject science or that those on the left accept it.
Slashdot Mirror
I would like to kvetch that by picking a 120 month average for a data set that only spans 420 months
Yeah. There is an 11 year cycle. A 120 year moving average smooths this out so you can see the long term trend. The data only goes back to the late 70's since it is derived from satellites. You can use sunspot count as a pretty good proxy and get something quite a bit longer: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/s...
This 120 year moving average is the method that was used to promote the solar/temperature link in the 80's. You can get a pretty good match for much of the last century, but it falls apart in recent decades.
You can now see that the "dive" in the end of the data as you graphed it is simply the variation in solar minima-- and since there are only three solar minima in the data set, this is not significant.
Probably you are right. To the extent that the change in solar irradiance is significant, the recent effect has been to cool the planet. That means that the larger significance you give to changes in solar irradiance the more difficult it becomes to explain the recent warming.
the people producing this tool are not scientists. So I am not attacking scientists, just people that continue the hype without substance.
The annotations are added by scientists. If you really are against hype and pro-science then you will be a fan of this site. You really should take a few minutes to check it out. Your preconceptions will be challenged.
Fair and balanced would be to allow flat Earthers an equal say? We need stories on slashdot questioning evolution or linking vaccines to autism? Maybe a nerd site can just go with the science on these topics.
Yeah, and I bet these guys will "correct" stories like these as well
Click the link in the summary and find out (hint: yes)
Variability in solar output does not account for the changes seen in the climate.
Right. On top of that, solar output has been dropping since the 80's. To the extent that it does have an effect, it has been a cooling effect for the last 4 decades. - http://woodfortrees.org/plot/p...
the unquestioning stance on climate change and vaccines,
You can't really fault a nerd site for having a pro-science bias.
Can you find any fault with the feedback provided by the scientists?
It goes both ways
Yes. That's the great thing about it and that is why I included the mark up on the Rolling Stone article in the summary.
if no reputable scientists are saying that climate change is a death sentence, why do articles like the one below keep appearing?
Probably because they are written by the media, not by scientists. That is why this new initiative is so great. Scientists can weigh in on the claims of an article and give you a clearer picture of where there is hyperbole and where there is a real concern.
why is the CO2 increasing rather than plants doing more converting and keeping the number stable?
Increased plant growth is thought to be sinking about 20-25% of our carbon emissions. So it does have something of a dampening effect. - http://theconversation.com/pla...
it's water vapor, that 'other' greenhouse gas
You can't just add water to the atmosphere. Cold air will not hold much water. The water vapour capacity of air increases as the temperature increases. Warmer air means more humidity means warmer air. It's a feedback.
When people point to a 15 year stabilization of temperatures [noaa.gov] as evidence in the climate change debate, the frequent response is "that's not climate, that's weather" or "that's normal variation."
That is because we can quantify the variation. If you subtract ENSO and PDO (which are largely responsible for the variation) from the temperature trend you get a fairly monotonous rise in temperatures.
http://www.theonion.com/articl...
Right. Tax at port of entry (as stated in first post).
Carbon taxes have shown to be effective where cap and trade is not. The tax has the advantage of being very simple.
Right, but the markets can sort that if we let them.
really need to do proper third party accounting on the carbon emissions of imported electricity
A carbon tax with 100 percent dividend, levied at the point of entry of first point of sale would address imported carbon and allow the marketplace, not politicians, to make investment decisions. It would also allow a reduction in sales and income taxes - two things we ought to be encouraging rather than taxing.
#RacistFlagsMustGo(except for Black Power flags)
For the record, there actually was never a civil war where one side fought for the right to own white people under the banner of a "black power" flag. Also, there is not to this day (nor was there ever) a state that still flies that flag of white oppression.
It could give us a decade or more of reduced warming. The downside is that when the sun returns to normal output we will have accelerated warming. It may give us false confidence in the short term only to bite us in the long run.
But the paper in question didn't make any predictions about climate. It predicted that solar output would be low over the next few cycles. It was the journalists (and denial websites) who were looking for a hook and jumped to "The ice age is upon us!" Phil Plait is correcting the journalists by referencing the science. If solar output does remain low, the impact to global temperatures will be minimal.
The technology enables us to lie more effectively. We can find whatever truth we desire:
"The anti-vaccine agitators can always find a renegade researcher or random “study” to back them up. This is erudition in the age of cyberspace: You surf until you reach the conclusion you’re after. You click your way to validation, confusing the presence of a website with the plausibility of an argument.
Although the Internet could be making all of us smarter, it makes many of us stupider, because it’s not just a magnet for the curious. It’s a sinkhole for the gullible. - http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07...
1) Yeah. that's what I said. €1 billion/year just on adaptation.
2) Scientists expect somewhere between 2-6 feet of sea level rise by 2100. Models show something closer to the low end (see Pfeffer et al. 2008; Horton et al. (2008)), but they assume no changes in ice sheet dynamics, which is known to be an iffy assumption (Overpeck et al., 2006). Empirical techniques show something closer to the high end (see Grinsted et al., 2009; Rahmstorf, 2007; Vermeer and Rahmstorf, 2009). Planning for 4.5 is not really all that cautious.
See level has been rising for 100's of years.
for hundreds of years prior to 1800 sea level was falling. Now it is going up quite fast and accelerating: 20th-Century sea-level rise on the U.S. Atlantic coast is faster than at any time in the past two millennia."
If anyone on earth doesn't give a damn what sea levels are, and can engineer to work around them - it is the Dutch.
Just because it can be done doesn't mean it will not be costly. Sea level rise is expected to cost the Dutch more than €100 billion (US$144 bn), through the year 2100 just to take adaptive measures, such as broadening coastal dunes and strengthening sea and river dikes.
a lefty court might think
The court didn't specify a policy or a remedy, so it is hard to see how you would consider this a 'lefty' judiciary. You can't assume that just because the court accepts the science that they are 'lefty'. It is not universal that conservatives reject science or that those on the left accept it.