The definitive post on why global warming is not 'paused' and is not 'cooling'.

[flogger]

"Demonizing" CO2 does not present the opinion that other variables don't exist. Either you can acknowledge this or this isn't anything else to talk about. If you are willing to be that dishonest about my side of the argument, there's no reason to expect you'll be honest about anything else.

Why not just answer my question ?

 

[Deuce]

Maybe you guys are confusing policy proposals with scientific research. It's true that policy proposals regarding climate focus on CO2. This is because CO2 is the primary variable over which humans have any influence. So while Democrats have not proposed any legislation to control solar output or the Earth's axial tilt, this should not be construed as believing that the sun or axial tilt have no effect on climate.

 

[Deuce]

Why not just answer my question ?

Because your question was incoherent, grammatically speaking. You'll have to clarify what you think there shouldn't be debate about. If CO2 isn't the only variable, are you saying this makes CO2 an "academic curiosity?"

CO2 can be both significant and not the only variable at play. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. And seeing as how CO2 is the most significant variable over which humans have influence, it stands to reason that CO2 would be the focus of policy initiatives, aka "demonizing."

 

[flogger]

Maybe you guys are confusing policy proposals with scientific research. It's true that policy proposals regarding climate focus on CO2. This is because CO2 is the primary variable over which humans have any influence.

Why should any policy proposals exist at all given the effect of our tiny contribution has never even been detected much less quantified against global temperature. That's why skeptics take the view that this has far more to do with politics then any genuinely legitimate environmental concern

 

[Jack Hays]

Nobody is saying that either. The very report mentioned in that link discusses other variables quite a bit. You and your unskeptical buddies are the only ones who have ever even remotely suggested that CO2 is the only variable, or the only important variable. You have an inaccurate perception of my side's argument.

Quibbling? No, you and flogger are clearly backpedaling off the absolutist bull**** that started this conversation.

Tsk tsk. You might want to reconsider that "absolutist" language. And I don't have a "side." Are we not all seekers after the truth? There really is no point denying that the persistence of the warming hiatus, and that alone, has led many to a new appreciation of diversity in thinking about climate causation.eace

 

[Deuce]

Why should any policy proposals exist at all given the effect of our tiny contribution has never even been detected much less quantified against global temperature. That's why skeptics take the view that this has far more to do with politics then any genuinely legitimate environmental concern

Your claim that our contribution has "never even been detected" is fallacious.

 

[flogger]

Because your question was incoherent, grammatically speaking. You'll have to clarify what you think there shouldn't be debate about. If CO2 isn't the only variable, are you saying this makes CO2 an "academic curiosity?"

Why is this issue being discussed were it not for the demonization of CO2 ? Is that simple enough for you now ?

CO2 can be both significant and not the only variable at play. These are not mutually exclusive ideas. And seeing as how CO2 is the most significant variable over which humans have influence, it stands to reason that CO2 would be the focus of policy initiatives, aka "demonizing."

But until we can even detect its effect much less quantify the tiny human component of it isn't it rather presumptuous to restructure our societies on the basis of an as yet unfounded suspicion. What if we guessed it wrong and ultimately it is insignificant ? Isn't it a fact that its actually the restructuring of society to fit a particular political worldview thats driving this agenda and impugning CO2 is just the excuse for implementing it ?

 

[Threegoofs]

. If you are willing to be that dishonest about my side of the argument, there's no reason to expect you'll be honest about anything else.

Ain't that the truth!!

 

[flogger]

Your claim that our contribution has "never even been detected" is fallacious.

The volume of our tiny contribution (0.012%) can be detected yes . Its effect on temperatures as yet cannot as all the failed climate models bear witness

 

[Deuce]

Why is this issue being discussed were it not for the demonization of CO2 ? Is that simple enough for you now ?

Yes, we discuss changes in how we handle CO2 because CO2 is something we can do something about. If CO2 were not significant we wouldn't be discussing policy regarding CO2. I'm not sure I understand the complaint, are you wanting people to demonize volcanic activity or orbital mechanics? That's seems futile.

But until we can even detect its effect much less quantify the tiny human component of it isn't it rather presumptuous to restructure our societies on the basis of an as yet unfounded suspicion. What if we guessed it wrong and ultimately it is insignificant ? Isn't it a fact that its actually the restructuring of society to fit a particular political worldview thats driving this agenda and impugning CO2 is just the excuse for implementing it ?

The claim that we haven't detected the effect is still fallacious. But as long as we're going with hypotheticals, what if we guessed right but didn't do anything because people like you had no standard of evidence that would satisfy you?

 

[Deuce]

The volume of our tiny contribution (0.012%) can be detected yes . Its effect on temperatures as yet cannot as all the failed climate models bear witness

Incorrect. eace:

 

[flogger]

Yes, we discuss changes in how we handle CO2 because CO2 is something we can do something about. If CO2 were not significant we wouldn't be discussing policy regarding CO2. I'm not sure I understand the complaint, are you wanting people to demonize volcanic activity or orbital mechanics? That's seems futile.

Ever heard of something called a cost/benefit analysis ?

The claim that we haven't detected the effect is still fallacious.

Prove it ? CO2 levels are the highest since the last glaciation yet temperatures are nowhere near being so . If the hypothesis demonizing CO2 had any merit then that should not be the case

But as long as we're going with hypotheticals, what if we guessed right but didn't do anything because people like you had no standard of evidence that would satisfy you?

I'll take what is and has happened in the real world over failed climate models every time. The real world isn't currently being very kind to the sacred hypothesis

 

[Lord of Planar]

By the way.... heres the answer:

What does that word "adjusted" mean on the Y axis?

 

[Lord of Planar]

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

 

[Threegoofs]

What does that word "adjusted" mean on the Y axis?

Read about it here:

http://www.appinsys.com/globalwarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure.htm#examples

 

[Lord of Planar]

Read about it here:

Global Temperatures

Wow...

You got one right!

Now do you really think such large adjustments can be made accurately?

 

[flogger]

Read about it here:

Global Temperatures

Excellent link and bookmarked . Plenty in there supporting the skeptic position. Are you turning over a new leaf ? :thumbs:

 

[Threegoofs]

Wow...

You got one right!

Now do you really think such large adjustments can be made accurately?

I guess sarcasm doesn't work so well my postings....

 

[Phys251]

It is a very simple calculation on an Excel spreadsheet to find out the earliest date from which the slope of temperature change to the present is zero or less. Using the latest HADCRUT4 data set it turns out to be November 2000. Prior to that date, they are all positive. Since 1850 the slope is a positive 0.0046 per year which adds up to a 0.75°C rise in temperature since that date. Since November of 2000 (2000.83) the slope is a negative -0.00020 which adds up to a drop in temperature of minus -0.0025 since then. The 2013.08 anomaly would have to have been at least 0.86 before that earliest date becomes more recent. Here are the pertinent rows from my Excel spreadsheet:

row#; yyyy.xx; anomaly; slope
...
0001; 1850.00; -0.695; 0.0046
...
1811; 2000.75; 0.209; 0.00063
1812; 2000.83; 0.151; -0.00020 [=SLOPE(B1811:B$1958,A1811:A$1958)]
...
1957; 2013.00; 0.432; 0.60
1958; 2013.08; 0.482

What does it mean?
Temperatures have been flat since November 2000.

[Posted over at Open Mind' and they tell me, "Your comment is awaiting moderation." we'll see how open they are. ]

 

[Jack Hays]

Another flaw in the models.eace

[h=2]New paper: Arctic amplification of temperature not primarily due to albedo changes, climate models need to be reworked[/h] Posted on February 3, 2014 by Anthony Watts
From the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology: Climate changes faster in the Arctic than anywhere else on Earth, a phenomenon that is often explained by retreating snow and ice leading to more solar surface warming (positive ice-albedo-effect).

In a new study in Nature Geoscience the scientists Felix Pithan and Dr. Thorsten Mauritsen from the department “The Atmosphere in the Earth System” at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology show that this effect is only secondary. Instead, the main cause of the high Arctic climate sensitivity is a weaker temperature feedback, due to 1) the low temperatures that prevail and 2) the increasing temperatures with height trapping warming to remain near the surface. For these reasons, the Arctic warms more in a global warming due to a forcing from e.g. CO[SUB]2[/SUB] than other regions.
Some commentary sheds further light on this.
Continue reading →

 

[Jack Hays]

Better check that data.eace

[h=2]Important study on temperature adjustments: ‘homogenization…can lead to a significant overestimate of rising trends of surface air temperature.’[/h] Posted on January 29, 2014 by Anthony Watts

From the “we told you so” department comes this paper out of China that quantifies many of the very problems with the US and global surface temperature record we have been discussing for years: the adjustments add more warming than the global warming signal itself
A paper just published in Theoretical and Applied Climatology finds that the data homogenization techniques commonly used to adjust temperature records for moving stations and the urban heat island effect [UHI] can result in a “significant” exaggeration of warming trends in the homogenized record.
The effect of homogenization is clear and quite pronounced. What they found in China is based on how NOAA treats homogenization of the surface temperature record.
Continue reading →

 

[AlbqOwl]

True, kindof. But the flipside of that is realizing that such a pause is not unusual nor inconsistent with AGW. Because CO2 is not the only variable and nobody is trying to claim that it is. A reduction in solar activity would obviously reduce a positive trend caused by a CO2 increase. Opposing forces and whatnot.

And by "kindof," I mean I'm not really sure I'd call it a hiatus. With good reason, "climate" is generally defined as an average over a 30 year period, specifically to to dampen out the influence of these short-term variations.

Climate is defined as an average over a 30-year period? You are kidding right? Thirty years isn't even a blink of an eyelash in the climatology. It doesn't even qualify as 'short term' in the paleontological record. It is meaningless. A 3000 year period might suggest a measurable trend when averaged, but not 30 years.

 

[Threegoofs]

Climate is defined as an average over a 30-year period? You are kidding right? Thirty years isn't even a blink of an eyelash in the climatology. It doesn't even qualify as 'short term' in the paleontological record. It is meaningless. A 3000 year period might suggest a measurable trend when averaged, but not 30 years.

Oh. Then you'll be interested in this:

 

[Jerry]

From Tamino's blog:

Global Temperature: the Post-1998 Surprise | Open Mind

Great explanation for the learning impaired.

Here's the setup. In 1998, if someone told you warming was stopped vs continue, imagine you plotted two lines (blue = no more warming - average of the past few years, red= continued warming). What does the data show?

President 'has four years to save Earth'
US must take the lead to avert eco-disaster!
Robin McKie in New York
The Observer, Saturday 17 January 2009
Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama's first administration, he added.

If AGW is not resolved by 2013, we're all going to die. That's just a fact, and NASA says so.

 

[Threegoofs]

If AGW is not resolved by 2013, we're all going to die. That's just a fact, and NASA says so.

Brace yourself. I've got news for you. We ARE all going to die. Its pretty much a fact.


But Hansen's point is that we may be getting to the point where reducing emissions is not going to save the planet from some serious consequences of global warming. Actually, not 'us' per se.. its a couple generations down the line, since the warming from the CO2 we emit today will continue throughout the next century.