If you notice the graph, it has some very low outliers near the end. These are based on preliminary data, and have huge error bars. It's best to remove those.
On the site below, you can select your own graphs, and post-processing. I've selected the BEST data from 1950 to 2010, plus trend lines from 1950 to 2001, and a trend line from 2001 to 2010. I've omitted 2011 because of the 2 outliers in the last two months.
As you can see, there's not much difference in trend lines. If you include 2011 as well, the trend changes to mostly flat, but that's because of the still bad quality preliminary data for the last couple of months.
Of course, trends over 10 year are not really meaningful, let alone trends over even shorter period. Really, you should be looking at trends over 20+ years instead.
Exactly. We only discovered crude oil in the first place, because it was seeping out of the ground. All those places are gone.
If the next civilization comes along 10,000 years from now, they're not going to drill 3 miles deep, 200 miles off-shore, to pump out some of the remaining oil.
Depends on when the model run started. If you take a model, and start it at 1900, while providing it with all the external influences until now, it may certainly disagree with today's temperature.
Of course, any errors in the model could used to figure out what parts of the model could be improved. Together with faster computers and better data, it's reasonable to assume the next generation model will have smaller errors.
Correct. But the sun was also weaker before, and continents in different places. It also has been hotter, and sea levels have been higher.
Of course, that's all very interesting, but that doesn't take away from the fact that humans are profoundly changing the planet's climate on a large scale.
running out of fossil fuel will be much more efficient
Agreed. It will be very efficient, and I have no doubt that's exactly what we'll do.
there will still always be petrol for your Ferrari for those who can afford it.
No, because when there's not enough oil, civilization as we know it will collapse, including all the infrastructure needed to get the oil from the ground into your Ferrari.
then perhaps what we are seeing now are CO2 levels increasing due to what temperatures were doing 800 years ago
Several more reasons why this couldn't be true:
a) Ocean acidity is increasing, which indicated CO2 is absorbed, rather than released.
b) Carbon isotopes of atmospheric CO2 indicate that there has been in increase in very old carbon, which matches the signature of carbon stored in fossil fuels.
c) Oxygen levels in the atmosphere have decreased slightly in the last century, consistent with increase CO2 from burning.
d) If you add up all the carbon from all the fossil fuel we've burned, the number is about twice as big as the increase of carbon in the atmosphere. So, if the atmospheric CO2 is coming from some "natural" source like the oceans, where did all the CO2 from burning fossil fuels go ?
global temperatures are NOT increasing by huge amounts in an extremely short time, DESPITE CO2 levels increasing in an extremely short time
Global temperatures are increasing by fairly big amounts in a short time.
perhaps what we are seeing now are CO2 levels increasing due to what temperatures were doing 800 years ago - a period, if I'm not very much mistaken, which we call the Medieval Warm period
No, apparently you have never looked closely at CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Here is a picture of the last half million years:
Note how the recent increase is much higher than before, and also goes almost vertical. Increases due to glacial cycles were much slower.
Also, even if there was an 800 year lag, it doesn't work that way. You cannot warm up the earth, cool it down again, and then see nothing happen until exactly 800 years later. And, of course, the MWP was nothing spectacular anyway. Compared to the glacial cycles, the MWP temperature swings were tiny, so the CO2 response should be tiny too.
And "normal" is just the long term average. Say between 200-300 ppm. You can see from the graph that's about the range that the earth has moved between in the last half million years. Based on the sharp increase in the graph, it is obvious were dealing with something unique here.
Not only should they have access to the raw data, they must also have access to the way this raw data was collected.
In fact, that's not even enough. Anybody wishing to discuss this issue must personally collect all raw data themselves, using instruments they personally created. This is too important to rely on 3rd party data.
In the mean time, we must choose to err on the side of caution, and keep the party going.
This time, however, heat lags CO2, as you can clearly see that CO2 concentrations have increased by huge amounts in an extremely short time. In about a century, we've increased the CO2 from a normal level to a level that the earth hasn't seen in at least half a million years.
Weather is not climate. It's perfectly possible to have a higher global temperature, and still freeze in your back yard.
For instance, last winter, cold arctic air moved out of the area, causing temperatures to drop in US and Europe. Of course, what a lot of people didn't realize is that this did not create a vacuum around the North Pole. Instead, warmer air from more moderate zones moved in to replace the cold air, and causing the arctic to get exceptionally warm.
Since you presumably don't live in the Arctic, you may have missed that.
NYC just had its earliest snowfall ever in recorded history
Snowfall is also interesting, since it's not only determined by the temperature, but also by the humidity. Higher temperatures promote evaporation, and whatever evaporates has to come down as precipitation. As long as the temperatures stay below freezing, that results in more snowfall. Of course, regional changes may vary.
When life began, there was also no free oxygen, so I agree we still have a ways to go.
That doesn't make any difference for the CO2/AGW discussion though. Oceans are still taking up about half the CO2 we humans produce. And for the modern era, there's no need to model CO2 concentration, when you can just measure it, and plug it straight into the climate model.
Models cannot include unpredictable changes, such as volcanic eruptions, strength of the solar cycle, or El-Nino timing. It's unfortunate, but that's just the reality.
However, these natural events are fairly short lived. If you look at a 20+ year period, the effect of these natural changes is mostly averaged out, and you can start to see the underlying warming trend caused by CO2.
You can, however, re-run old model runs with updated inputs about El-Nino, the sun, and volcanic eruption for verification.
Until now, oceans have been a net sink of CO2, not a source. The increased concentration in the atmosphere has moved the equilibrium point more than the increased water temperature.
I've joined plenty of teleconferences (mainly with engineers, though), and don't remember ever having a problem with just telephones.
I've done a few video conferences, and didn't feel the video was adding anything. Also, often some party will have a video problem, and you waste a lot of time trying to get it fixed during the meeting.
Robots seem like complete overkill. They also don't work when joining the conference from places where you don't have all that infrastructure set up, like at home.
Makes sense? No it doesn't. You talk as if it's obvious that piracy is immoral and unethical
Your, mine, or the judge's opinion on piracy don't matter in this case. The judge simply follows the written law and precedents, and the court's decision makes perfect sense in that context. If you want to argue that the law is wrong, take it up with politicians.
Slashdot Mirror
If you notice the graph, it has some very low outliers near the end. These are based on preliminary data, and have huge error bars. It's best to remove those.
On the site below, you can select your own graphs, and post-processing. I've selected the BEST data from 1950 to 2010, plus trend lines from 1950 to 2001, and a trend line from 2001 to 2010. I've omitted 2011 because of the 2 outliers in the last two months.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/best/from:1950/to:2010/plot/best/from:2001/to:2010/trend/plot/best/from:1950/to:2001/trend
As you can see, there's not much difference in trend lines. If you include 2011 as well, the trend changes to mostly flat, but that's because of the still bad quality preliminary data for the last couple of months.
Of course, trends over 10 year are not really meaningful, let alone trends over even shorter period. Really, you should be looking at trends over 20+ years instead.
Exactly. We only discovered crude oil in the first place, because it was seeping out of the ground. All those places are gone.
If the next civilization comes along 10,000 years from now, they're not going to drill 3 miles deep, 200 miles off-shore, to pump out some of the remaining oil.
Depends on when the model run started. If you take a model, and start it at 1900, while providing it with all the external influences until now, it may certainly disagree with today's temperature.
Of course, any errors in the model could used to figure out what parts of the model could be improved. Together with faster computers and better data, it's reasonable to assume the next generation model will have smaller errors.
Correct. But the sun was also weaker before, and continents in different places. It also has been hotter, and sea levels have been higher.
Of course, that's all very interesting, but that doesn't take away from the fact that humans are profoundly changing the planet's climate on a large scale.
Agreed. It will be very efficient, and I have no doubt that's exactly what we'll do.
No, because when there's not enough oil, civilization as we know it will collapse, including all the infrastructure needed to get the oil from the ground into your Ferrari.
Several more reasons why this couldn't be true:
a) Ocean acidity is increasing, which indicated CO2 is absorbed, rather than released.
b) Carbon isotopes of atmospheric CO2 indicate that there has been in increase in very old carbon, which matches the signature of carbon stored in fossil fuels.
c) Oxygen levels in the atmosphere have decreased slightly in the last century, consistent with increase CO2 from burning.
d) If you add up all the carbon from all the fossil fuel we've burned, the number is about twice as big as the increase of carbon in the atmosphere. So, if the atmospheric CO2 is coming from some "natural" source like the oceans, where did all the CO2 from burning fossil fuels go ?
Global temperatures are increasing by fairly big amounts in a short time.
No, apparently you have never looked closely at CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. Here is a picture of the last half million years:
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
Note how the recent increase is much higher than before, and also goes almost vertical. Increases due to glacial cycles were much slower.
Also, even if there was an 800 year lag, it doesn't work that way. You cannot warm up the earth, cool it down again, and then see nothing happen until exactly 800 years later. And, of course, the MWP was nothing spectacular anyway. Compared to the glacial cycles, the MWP temperature swings were tiny, so the CO2 response should be tiny too.
And "normal" is just the long term average. Say between 200-300 ppm. You can see from the graph that's about the range that the earth has moved between in the last half million years. Based on the sharp increase in the graph, it is obvious were dealing with something unique here.
Not only should they have access to the raw data, they must also have access to the way this raw data was collected.
In fact, that's not even enough. Anybody wishing to discuss this issue must personally collect all raw data themselves, using instruments they personally created. This is too important to rely on 3rd party data.
In the mean time, we must choose to err on the side of caution, and keep the party going.
The US graph is the one that's highest until a couple of years ago, when it got overtaken by China.
The colors are not the same, by the way. China is blue and the US is purple.
Here's the graph of the Berkeley data you're talking about:
https://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/berk4.jpg
Blue line is a linear interpolation of pre-1998 data.
Green line is an extrapolation of that same line.
Red line is interpolation of post-1998 data.
I don't see any evidence the trend has stopped. Do you ?
Both things happen at the same time.
Wow, crazy, huh ?
This time, however, heat lags CO2, as you can clearly see that CO2 concentrations have increased by huge amounts in an extremely short time. In about a century, we've increased the CO2 from a normal level to a level that the earth hasn't seen in at least half a million years.
Weather is not climate. It's perfectly possible to have a higher global temperature, and still freeze in your back yard.
For instance, last winter, cold arctic air moved out of the area, causing temperatures to drop in US and Europe. Of course, what a lot of people didn't realize is that this did not create a vacuum around the North Pole. Instead, warmer air from more moderate zones moved in to replace the cold air, and causing the arctic to get exceptionally warm.
Since you presumably don't live in the Arctic, you may have missed that.
Snowfall is also interesting, since it's not only determined by the temperature, but also by the humidity. Higher temperatures promote evaporation, and whatever evaporates has to come down as precipitation. As long as the temperatures stay below freezing, that results in more snowfall. Of course, regional changes may vary.
I guess, with that attitude, there wouldn't be anything that would qualify as a threat.
When life began, there was also no free oxygen, so I agree we still have a ways to go.
That doesn't make any difference for the CO2/AGW discussion though. Oceans are still taking up about half the CO2 we humans produce. And for the modern era, there's no need to model CO2 concentration, when you can just measure it, and plug it straight into the climate model.
Models cannot include unpredictable changes, such as volcanic eruptions, strength of the solar cycle, or El-Nino timing. It's unfortunate, but that's just the reality.
However, these natural events are fairly short lived. If you look at a 20+ year period, the effect of these natural changes is mostly averaged out, and you can start to see the underlying warming trend caused by CO2.
You can, however, re-run old model runs with updated inputs about El-Nino, the sun, and volcanic eruption for verification.
Until now, oceans have been a net sink of CO2, not a source. The increased concentration in the atmosphere has moved the equilibrium point more than the increased water temperature.
If there are enough people protesting, they won't be slaughtered anymore. It's just a matter of time.
Have we ? I thought there was still plenty of doubt.
Obvious troll is obvious.
It's close enough. I doubt the petitioners were interested in possible bacterial life on Mars anyway.
Seriously. Even if the government was withholding information, some silly on-line petition isn't going to chance anything.
I've joined plenty of teleconferences (mainly with engineers, though), and don't remember ever having a problem with just telephones.
I've done a few video conferences, and didn't feel the video was adding anything. Also, often some party will have a video problem, and you waste a lot of time trying to get it fixed during the meeting.
Robots seem like complete overkill. They also don't work when joining the conference from places where you don't have all that infrastructure set up, like at home.
Some places could actually experience dropping sea levels as a result of melting ice.
http://harvardmagazine.com/2010/05/gravity-of-glacial-melt
You can't blame people for only subscribing to the groups they find interesting.
Your, mine, or the judge's opinion on piracy don't matter in this case. The judge simply follows the written law and precedents, and the court's decision makes perfect sense in that context. If you want to argue that the law is wrong, take it up with politicians.