Global warming really is happening... (well, duh!)

[Whitey Grandad]

As opposed to the bastion of scientific truth that is the Mail Online. Really? Try widening your internet search parameters from the Daily Mail, if you're interested in scientific matters. There's a load of good stuff. And even better, most sites don't have a sidebar featuring Kim Kardashian and Jennifer Aniston's latest diet.

 

Is that one of those targeted ads, and if so, why are they aiming it at you?

[Goatboy]

Is that one of those targeted ads, and if so, why are they aiming it at you?

 

Fat arse, big nose?

[tedmaul]

Fat arse, big nose?

 

That's Le Tiss for you. Mail online sidebar is quite famous really. Just saying don't get your science info from the Mail.

[trousers]

If the global warming figures don't match expectations, 'adjust' them until they do...?

 

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/

[Verbal]

If the global warming figures don't match expectations, 'adjust' them until they do...?

 

http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/04/noaa-fiddles-with-climate-data-to-erase-the-15-year-global-warming-hiatus/

 

Tough one. Who to believe? The author of a peer reviewed paper in a major scientific journal? Or a swivel-eyed loony rag that's so far out there even you'd be embarrassed?

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/02/3617462/science-is-hard/

[trousers]

Tough one. Who to believe? The author of a peer reviewed paper in a major scientific journal? Or a swivel-eyed loony rag that's so far out there even you'd be embarrassed?

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/02/3617462/science-is-hard/

Swivel-eyed loony rag for me every time

[badgerx16]

Swivel-eyed loony rag for me every time

 

That's what we've come to expect from you

[trousers]

That's what we've come to expect from you

 

I aim to please

[hutch]

The trouble with social networking is that even swivel-eyed loonies can find peers.

[Whitey Grandad]

I know a lot of scientists who are swivel-eyed loonies.

[trousers]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/environment/ill-be-just-fine-says-planet-20080306774

 

THE planet Earth has dismissed claims it is in danger from global warming, insisting the most likely outcome is the extinction of humans.

 

The Earth broke its silence after years of environmental campaigns urging people to ‘Save the Planet’.

 

Earth said: “I’ll be absolutely fine, seriously. I might get a bit warmer and a bit wetter, but that actually sounds quite nice. Try living through an ice age. Pardon my French, but it’s absolutely ****ing freezing.”

 

The four billion year-old planet, based 93 million miles from the Sun, said it was ‘sick and tired’ of being drawn into arguments about human behaviour.

 

“Look, I’m just a planet doing its thing, alright? If you want to live on me, that’s your business, but I’ve got important planet stuff to do. Try being in elliptical orbit, or balancing your gravitational pull with a medium-sized moon. Trust me, it’s difficult.”

 

The planet said environmental campaigners should change their slogan from ‘Save the Planet’ to something more relevant such as ‘Save Your Sorry Arse’.

 

Earth added: “Okay, so there may come a time when I am no longer able to support pandas, polar bears, and humans, but you know what? Life goes on.

 

“Who knows, I might end up being a haven for toads.”

[jawillwill]

There are some morons on this thread.

[Whitey Grandad]

There are some morons on this thread.

 

And your point is... ?

[Guided Missile]

Tough one. Who to believe? The author of a peer reviewed paper in a major scientific journal? Or a swivel-eyed loony rag that's so far out there even you'd be embarrassed?

Contrary to the views of that well known scientist, Leonardo De Caprio, it has been confirmed by the authors of a peer reviewed paper in a major scientific journal (Nature) that there has been a 15 year hiatus in global warming between 2000-2015.

Those who are open minded should read this and worry about feeding the world's growing population, instead of climate change.

[buctootim]

it has been confirmed by the authors of a peer reviewed paper in a major scientific journal (Nature) that there has been a 15 year hiatus in global warming between 2000-2015.

 

You didn't read or understand the report you cited. It is about fluctuations in the rate of climate change in the early 2000s, not denying it exists. Here's a helpful line from it: "A point of agreement we have with Lewandowsky et al concerns the unfortunate way in which the recent changes have been framed in terms of GMST having “‘stalled’, ‘stopped’, ‘paused’, or entered a ‘hiatus’”. Just exactly how such changes should be referred to is open to debate. Possible choices include ‘reduced rate of warming’, ‘decadal fluctuation’ or ‘temporary slowdown’ " It was still getting warmer in the early 2000s just not quite as quickly as before or since.

 

To be clear 2015 was the warmest year on record and January 2016 was the warmest month since modern record-keeping began in 1880 continuing a long-term warming trend. 15 of the 16 warmest years on record have now occurred since 2001.

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

https://weather.com/news/climate/news/record-warmest-january-global-2016

 

Yeah we know - its not real because of El Nino / the fiddled the results by increasing the weight given to sea buoys / emailgate.

Edited 29 February, 2016 by buctootim

[Guided Missile]

Thanks for explaining such a complex set of results. All I could see, when I glanced at the graphs, was that the climate has "changed" at a rate of between +0.2 to -0.2 C per decade since 1900.

 

I bet you reply to all those Nigerian emails looking for a home for their money.

[buctootim]

Thanks for explaining such a complex set of results. All I could see, when I glanced at the graphs, was that the climate has "changed" at a rate of between +0.2 to -0.2 C per decade since 1900.

 

I bet you reply to all those Nigerian emails looking for a home for their money.

 

Given you arent able to interpret even a pop science article maybe you should consider a guardian to look after your money?

 

FYI 0.2c per decade is 1.2c so far and because of the lag another 1.2 is built into the system even if we stopped all emissions tomorrow. We'll be lucky to get away with 3c in total - thats the difference between London and Toulouse and between Toulouse and Tehran.

[Whitey Grandad]

You didn't read or understand the report you cited. It is about fluctuations in the rate of climate change in the early 2000s, not denying it exists. Here's a helpful line from it: "A point of agreement we have with Lewandowsky et al concerns the unfortunate way in which the recent changes have been framed in terms of GMST having “‘stalled’, ‘stopped’, ‘paused’, or entered a ‘hiatus’”. Just exactly how such changes should be referred to is open to debate. Possible choices include ‘reduced rate of warming’, ‘decadal fluctuation’ or ‘temporary slowdown’ " It was still getting warmer in the early 2000s just not quite as quickly as before or since.

 

To be clear 2015 was the warmest year on record and January 2016 was the warmest month since modern record-keeping began in 1880 continuing a long-term warming trend. 15 of the 16 warmest years on record have now occurred since 2001.

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-analyses-reveal-record-shattering-global-warm-temperatures-in-2015

https://weather.com/news/climate/news/record-warmest-january-global-2016

 

Yeah we know - its not real because of El Nino / the fiddled the results by increasing the weight given to sea buoys / emailgate.

 

A timescale of 135 years is nothing.

[Guided Missile]

Given you arent able to interpret even a pop science article maybe you should consider a guardian to look after your money?

 

FYI 0.2c per decade is 1.2c so far and because of the lag another 1.2 is built into the system even if we stopped all emissions tomorrow. We'll be lucky to get away with 3c in total - thats the difference between London and Toulouse and between Toulouse and Tehran.

 

The global variation is plus 0.2C to minus 0.2C per decade since 1900. You really have sh! t for brains, don't you?

[Guided Missile]

Pop Science?:

Contributors:

John C. Fyfe¹

Gerald A. Meehl²

Matthew H. England³

Michael E. Mann⁴

Benjamin D. Santer⁵

Gregory M. Flato¹

Ed Hawkins⁶

Nathan P. Gillett¹

Shang-Ping Xie⁷

Yu Kosaka⁸

and

Neil C. Swart¹

 

1: Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis,

Environment and Climate Change Canada, University

of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 2Y2,

Canada.

2: National Center for Atmospheric Research,

Boulder, Colorado 80307, USA. 3ARC Centre of

Excellence for Climate System Science, University

of New South Wales, New South Wales 2052,

Australia.

4: Department of Meteorology and Earth

and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania

State University, University Park, Pennsylvania,

USA.

5 : Program for Climate Model Diagnosis

and Intercomparison (PCMDI), Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,

California 94550, USA.

6: National Centre for

Atmospheric Science, Department of Meteorology,

University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB, UK.

7: Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University

of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive,

MC 0206, La Jolla, California 92093, USA.

8: Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology,

University of Tokyo, 4-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku,

Tokyo 153-8904, Japan

 

[buctootim]

The global variation is plus 0.2C to minus 0.2C per decade since 1900. You really have sh! t for brains, don't you?

 

Maybe - but Im able to understand basic reports and data which elude you. You're must be in a bad place.

 

To be super clear (This is what I use for my eight year old but not needed for my 12 year old) - even if some decades are +0.2 and some are -0.2 since 1900 global surface temperatures have risen by around 1.2c. No amount of deflection from you every time you are caught being a functional illiterate is going to change that.

[buctootim]

Pop Science?:

Contributors:

John C. Fyfe¹

Gerald A. Meehl²

Matthew H. England³

Michael E. Mann⁴

Benjamin D. Santer⁵

Gregory M. Flato¹

Ed Hawkins⁶

Nathan P. Gillett¹

Shang-Ping Xie⁷

Yu Kosaka⁸

and

Neil C. Swart¹

 

1: Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis,

Environment and Climate Change Canada, University

of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, V8W 2Y2,

Canada.

2: National Center for Atmospheric Research,

Boulder, Colorado 80307, USA. 3ARC Centre of

Excellence for Climate System Science, University

of New South Wales, New South Wales 2052,

Australia.

4: Department of Meteorology and Earth

and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania

State University, University Park, Pennsylvania,

USA.

5 : Program for Climate Model Diagnosis

and Intercomparison (PCMDI), Lawrence

Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore,

California 94550, USA.

6: National Centre for

Atmospheric Science, Department of Meteorology,

University of Reading, Reading RG6 6BB, UK.

7: Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University

of California San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive,

MC 0206, La Jolla, California 92093, USA.

8: Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology,

University of Tokyo, 4-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku,

Tokyo 153-8904, Japan

 

 

Still missing. The magazine Nature is pop science. The report is a shortened and dumbed down version for non experts. Not dumbed down enough apparently.

[buctootim]

A timescale of 135 years is nothing.

 

Its nothing in terms of history of the world. However the past 135 years has seen the majority of human greenhouse gas emissions. Without rehashing all the old arguments, no-one is denying the climate changes naturally. Man made climate change is additional to that.

[Guided Missile]

To be super clear (This is what I use for my eight year old but not needed for my 12 year old) - even if some decades are +0.2 and some are -0.2 since 1900 global surface temperatures have risen by around 1.2c. No amount of deflection from you every time you are caught being a functional illiterate is going to change that.

I think your 12 year old may be able to tell you the difference between Centigrade and Fahrenheit. Try again dopey...

[buctootim]

I think your 12 year old may be able to tell you the difference between Centigrade and Fahrenheit. Try again dopey...

 

You've been wrong on every single point and you're wrong again and you accuse me of being thick? You know what that makes you presumably? - congratulations on defying the chimp and typewriter odds.

 

Its c1.2 centigrade since 1900 and 1 centigrade above the 1850-1900 average. Not Farenheit. Clear?

[Guided Missile]

You've been wrong on every single point and you're wrong again and you accuse me of being thick? You know what that makes you presumably? - congratulations on defying the chimp and typewriter odds.

 

Its c1.2 centigrade since 1900 and 1 centigrade above the 1850-1900 average. Not Farenheit. Clear?

Behave....

 

Colin Morice, climate monitoring research scientist at the Met Office, said: ‘The new study brings together our latest and most comprehensive databases of land and marine temperature observations, along with recent advances in our understanding of how measurements were made at sea. ‘These have been combined to give us a clearer a picture of what the historical record can tell us about global climate change over the past 161 years.‘Updates have resulted in some changes to individual years in the nominal global mean temperature record, but have not changed the overall warming signal of about 0.75 C since 1900.’

[sadoldgit]

Guys, take it easy. You are in danger of turning into me and Hypo! I am no scientist and it is quite clear that climate has changed throughout the history of the planet. But is also seems entirely reasonable that mankind have contributed to the speeding up of global warming put pumping tons of crap into the atmosphere in the last couple of centuries. Things have changed enormously in my life time to the extent that it seems that we no longer have seasons, we just have weather. I don't know what the rate of change was before but I get the impression that change is happening a lot more quickly now. Trouble is, those who think we have nothing to do with the speed of change aren't going to change their opinions just as those who believe we are to blame for global warming aren't going to either.

[buctootim]

Behave....

 

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2015/global-average-temperature-2015

Edited 29 February, 2016 by buctootim

[Whitey Grandad]

You've been wrong on every single point and you're wrong again and you accuse me of being thick? You know what that makes you presumably? - congratulations on defying the chimp and typewriter odds.

 

Its c1.2 centigrade since 1900 and 1 centigrade above the 1850-1900 average. Not Farenheit. Clear?

 

Pedant alert!

 

It's Celsius not Centigrade. Since the year before I was born, apparently.

[buctootim]

Pedant alert!

 

It's Celsius not Centigrade. Since the year before I was born, apparently.

 

Okay, I'll give you that one How about Kelvin?

[Whitey Grandad]

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2015/global-average-temperature-2015

 

You have to be careful with the Met Office, there is some sort of agenda there.

 

My son had some dealings with them and asked them about global warming. 'To be honest', they said, 'we're just happy if we can get it right in 3 days time'.

[Whitey Grandad]

Okay, I'll give you that one How about Kelvin?

 

Doesn't he retire this year?

[sadoldgit]

Doesn't he retire this year?

 

If not I hear he is warming to the idea

[buctootim]

You have to be careful with the Met Office, there is some sort of agenda there.

 

My son had some dealings with them and asked them about global warming. 'To be honest', they said, 'we're just happy if we can get it right in 3 days time'.

 

Yes but there is huge difference between predicting weather tomorrow and looking back at historical temperature and ghg emissions to make estimates for future years. Insurance companies dont know who is going crash each day but by looking at past claims they can accurately aggregate claims for the coming year.

[Guided Missile]

Pedant alert!

 

It's Celsius not Centigrade. Since the year before I was born, apparently.

As we're talking about temperature records from 1900, I think I'll stick to Centigrade...

[Whitey Grandad]

Yes but there is huge difference between predicting weather tomorrow and looking back at historical temperature and ghg emissions to make estimates for future years. Insurance companies dont know who is going crash each day but by looking at past claims they can accurately aggregate claims for the coming year.

 

I know, I don't think it was offered in a serious way.

 

Having said that, should the Met Office be getting involved in the controversy?

[Whitey Grandad]

As we're talking about temperature records from 1900, I think I'll stick to Centigrade...

 

Centigrade has 100° for freezing and 0° for boiling water. On that basis the world has been getting cooler

[buctootim]

Having said that, should the Met Office be getting involved in the controversy?

 

They are just putting the data out there and saying what the implications are. The controversy is between those who believe it and those who dont. As long as they stick to that and dont advocate specific policies I see what they are doing as a core part of their job.

 

I saw Adair Turner give a great speech on the issue a few years ago along the lines of - "it will cost us 1.2% of GDP over 40 years to stop this happening. Put another way we will be as rich by December 2050 as we would have been by April 2050 if we did nothing. Why wouldnt you spend the money when the costs of not acting are so much higher - wars, refugees, hunger - even just adaptations to our houses would cost far more. Prudence, spend a little now and prevent disaster later is the principle the whole insurance industry is built on".

[Whitey Grandad]

They are just putting the data out there and saying what the implications are. The controversy is between those who believe it and those who dont. As long as they stick to that and dont advocate specific policies I see what they are doing as a core part of their job.

 

I saw Adair Turner give a great speech on the issue a few years ago along the lines of - "it will cost us 1.2% of GDP over 40 years to stop this happening. Put another way we will be as rich by December 2050 as we would have been by April 2050 if we did nothing. Why wouldnt you spend the money when the costs of not acting are so much higher - wars, refugees, hunger - even just adaptations to our houses would cost far more. Prudence, spend a little now and prevent disaster later is the principle the whole insurance industry is built on".

 

But would that stop the next ice age?

[badgerx16]

But would that stop the next ice age?

 

It will certainly get warmer when the sun goes supernova.

[Guided Missile]

Centigrade has 100° for freezing and 0° for boiling water. On that basis the world has been getting cooler

Always good to hear from an expert....

 

Definition of centigrade

: relating to, conforming to, or having a thermometric scale on which the interval between the freezing point of water and the boiling point of water is divided into 100 degrees with 0° representing the freezing point and 100° the boiling point.

[andysstuff]

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/01/winter-was-probably-warmest-ever-in-england-and-wales-met-office

 

Sent from my D6603 using Tapatalk

[Guided Missile]

To put it all in perspective:

 

[Whitey Grandad]

Always good to hear from an expert....

 

Definition of centigrade

: relating to, conforming to, or having a thermometric scale on which the interval between the freezing point of water and the boiling point of water is divided into 100 degrees with 0° representing the freezing point and 100° the boiling point.

 

Such confusion was one reason for renaming it after its creator, Anders Celsius.

 

The freezing and boiling points are not used in the definition which refers to Absolute Zero and the triple point of water (actually VSMOW) and ties the Celsius scale to the Kelvin.

Edited 1 March, 2016 by Whitey Grandad

[Guided Missile]

Such confusion was one reason for renaming it after its creator, Anders Celsius.

 

The freezing and boiling points are not used in the definition which refers to Absolute Zero and the triple point of water (actually VSMOW) and ties the Celsius scale to the Kelvin.

Total b0££0x. There has never been any such confusion. The reverse scale lasted all of two years from 1742-1744. Centigrade was used as a scale from the 18th century until 1985 by the Met Office, when they switched to Celsius. Confusion regarding water boiling at zero centigrade? Only when you have dementia.

Edited 1 March, 2016 by Guided Missile
Typo

[Whitey Grandad]

Total b0££0x. There has never been any such confusion. The reverse scale lasted all of two years from 1742-1744. Centigrade was used as a scale from the 18th century until 1985 by the Met Office, when they switched to Celsius. Confusion regarding water boiling at zero centigrade? Only when you have dementia.

 

Celsius since 1948, actually. When scientists and engineers today refer to °C they are referring to Celsius. The Met Office, like all the British Civil Service, take a long time to catch up with the modern world.

 

I thought my reference to a retrograde scale was a light-hearted contribution. I never imagined that anyone might be confused by it

[buctootim]

To put it all in perspective:

 

 

That graph shows why climate science is so important. A lot (most?) climate scientists agree we would be heading towards a new ice age by now if it wasnt for man made ghgs. Without any naturally occurring ghgs at all average earth surface temperatures would be around -18c. Some is essential, but no-one yet knows the underlying rate of climate cooling and how much man made C02 is needed to create the Goldilocks temperature.

 

Its not the temperature changes observed so far that are important. Its the fact that current and projected levels of C02 are closely associated with much higher temperatures levels. We wont feel the full effect of ghgs we've already put into the atmosphere for a another century.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/

Edited 1 March, 2016 by buctootim

[Whitey Grandad]

That graph shows why climate science is so important. A lot (most?) climate scientists agree we would be heading towards a new ice age by now if it wasnt for man made ghgs. Without any naturally occurring ghgs at all average earth surface temperatures would be around -18c. Some is essential, but no-one yet knows the underlying rate of climate cooling and how much man made C02 is needed to create the Goldilocks temperature.

 

Its not the temperature changes observed so far that are important. Its the fact that current and projected levels of C02 are closely associated with much higher temperatures levels. We wont feel the full effect of ghgs we've already put into the atmosphere for a another century.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/ma_01/

 

Ah but do they lag or do they lead?

The problem with the science is that it is incomplete. At present it takes no account of the effects of the activity of the sun, and I'm not talking about total solar output but the effects of high-energy particles on the Earth's atmosphere.

 

https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/category/cosmic-rays/

[buctootim]

Ah but do they lag or do they lead?

The problem with the science is that it is incomplete. At present it takes no account of the effects of the activity of the sun, and I'm not talking about total solar output but the effects of high-energy particles on the Earth's atmosphere.

 

https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/category/cosmic-rays/

 

Those hoary old 'whatabouts' were explained / debunked long ago Whitey. The science is there if you care to read and its been discussed on this thread previously, so forgive me if we don't go over it again. There are lots of comprehensive summaries around - like this. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/page3.php http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

 

The cosmic ray theory was from one guy in 1998. There are lots on unknowns in climate science which will affect the rate of climate change - rate of deforestation; increase in livestock production; warmer air increases evaporation from the oceans and raises the moisture carrying capacity of air - leading to more clouds; methane release from melting permafrost; reduced reflective ice caps / carbon black on snow from new shipping lanes etc - but no-one seriously challenges its existence anymore.

Edited 1 March, 2016 by buctootim

[Whitey Grandad]

Those hoary old 'whatabouts' were explained / debunked long ago Whitey. The science is there if you care to read and its been discussed on this thread previously, so forgive me if we don't go over it again. There are lots of comprehensive summaries around - like this. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page4.php http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/page3.php http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

 

The cosmic ray theory was from one guy in 1998. There are lots on unknowns in climate science which will affect the rate of climate change - rate of deforestation; increase in livestock production; warmer air increases evaporation from the oceans and raises the moisture carrying capacity of air - leading to more clouds; methane release from melting permafrost; reduced reflective ice caps / carbon black on snow from new shipping lanes etc - but no-one seriously challenges its existence anymore.

 

As I have sad many, many times, it is not Total Solar Irradiance that should be considered. The problem with the science is that there is none concerning the high-energy behaviour of the sun. Jasper Kirkby is still getting funding at CERN but the sun is not an easy subject since it tends to do whatever it wants. Where there is no science let's just ignore the biggest factor in the whole interrelated system, shall we?

 

How do you explain the Little Ice Age during the Maunder Minimum? There are a lot of changes going on at the moment but the current science does not encompass the complete picture. Your view on any theories will depend on which of the climate religions you happen to be worshipping at the time.

 

 

https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/2016/01/30/cosmic-rays-in-earths-atmosphere-are-intensifying/

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/paulhudson/entries/6d50a6bd-779a-32d6-bfca-06e4484d6835

 

http://www.livescience.com/51597-maunder-minimum-mini-ice-age.html