How Bad Is Global Warming?

[zangtang]

speaking of hungry ghosts, if it is that bad, how are we going to feed ourselves?

- and whilst that may look off-topic now, dot dot dot

[Sounder]

Sounder » Fri Jan 23, 2015 6:45 am wrote:
Nordic wrote....

It is abundantly clear we are in a path of self-extermination even without all this Global Warming debacle.

(edit; true that, and my response refers to a different part of Nordics post.)

Nordic, you are one of my favorite posters, but you just jumped the shark here.

I feel sorry for you folk that do not get that GW is a money mine and a distraction from all the actual toxins being pumped into the environment.

!700 private jets at Davos not enough of a clue for you? Every large corporation being members of Agenda 21 , including Monsanto, not enough?

Past similar operations that were and are money mines and distractors from more substantial issues, such as the war on, you name the boogy man, not enough for you?

How about the constant selling of the meme on media. Those people surely have our best interests in mind, right?

You all, try to lay some social conformity bullshit on me and I will be happy to trade words with you in my feeble attempt to blow your stupid fucking conformity out of the water.


The skeptics are being driven away, producing an artificial consensus. Delta Dawn was treated rudely and with conformity signals from the start. The issue is intended to be polarizing so that we all live in non communicating bubbles.

Why do we have to be the kind of fools that fall for this divisive social engineering? Locked into stupid reactive mind trivia. Stupid just stupid.

The elite sure are getting their moneys worth on this one.

Is this where you say I called Nordic a fool Iam? Because I do not see it. Are you doing a bit of your own divisive social engineering? That's OK Iam, you can get away with character assassination when you are on the side of the consensus.

And please Iam, you have no call at all to demand responses from me given your continued lack of engagement on the points that I try to make.

Well that and your lack of respect.

[Monk]

No, I'm not joking, and the graph is completely relevant. You stick to short periods to prove your point (i.e., the blue trend lines) and ignore the longer, red trend line.

Also,

"Contrary To Contrarian Claims, IPCC Temperature Projections Have Been Exceptionally Accurate"

Then you do not understand what is being said to you....the elevator is a joke thing and is not a real graph of global temperature, as it does not use valid IPCC approved data...RSS, HadCrut, etc.,...data that shows there has been about 0.7 C of warming since records began.....and which shows a pause since about 1998.

IPCC predictions are progressively digressing from the observed in time as the pause continues...if you think otherwise...why are the agw team suggesting that the missing heat, to explain the pause, is hiding in the the ocean deeps, and the other 62 excuses for the 18-26 year 'pause' in global warming?

Please don't link to anything that does not use valid IPCC data........this graph uses valid IPCC data....



Edited for typo..

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/02/roy- ... ption.html

[Monk]

To the claim that human activity is the "predominate cause of global warming." Rather, CO2 ppm has a forcing factor. More details in the NAS reports shared earlier.

I still don't understand what your point is....I was not arguing about climate science radiative forcing factor of CO2, I didn't even raise it???

"The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [i.e., human-induced] interference with the climate system". Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

My point is that human activity does not have to be a "predominate cause." It only has to provide a forcing factor.

[Monk]

Again, go back to the escalator:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

See the green lines? They move up and down readily.

See the blue lines? Lots of pauses in the past.

See the red line? It's moving upward. That's global warming.

Look, the SkS escalator is not a serious scientific graph, it's meant as a take down of skeptics....fair enough as both sides do that.......but I use actual IPCC validated graphs while you past SkS side bar stuff...please desist except in the humour context...

Here is a scientific examination of the the SkS Escalator...it's old hat...but since it seems your new to this, I repeat it. The “Escalator” graphic demonstrates, with cherry-picking you can find low (or high) trends in short periods of a noisy signal. But those short trends are just looking at the _noise_. Which is why proper science includes measuring the statistical significance of the trend to see if it is meaningful. Until he does so, until he numerically demonstrates that a trend has appeared over and above the noise – he’s said _nothing_ of interest. He’s just looking at the noise…

SkepticalScience misrepresented the trend of the “fourth step”. The time period they selected is November 1994 to December 2000. As it turns out, the only dataset that shows a flat trend during that period is the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI). Both HADCRUT4 and NCDC have significant warming trends from November 1994 to December 2000 at about 0.08 to 0.09 deg C per decade. The average of the three datasets is approximately 0.06 deg C/decade, and that is a significant warming trend.



The Escalator” would look like if SkepticalScience had used the real linear trend for the fourth step.



If you want to joke about Sks elevator....click below..

The data comes from NASA GISS. The raw data is even linked in the page. See for yourself.

The second graph, which uses multiple data sets, is similar to the first graph and also shows an upward trend.

In short, you just proved my point!

[Monk]

It seems we are coming from different perspectives....I'm appalled at the financial fraud being perpetrated while you seem to be concerned about the consequences wrt how the booty it will be spent...so be it..no problem.

If you think that's bad, wait till you find out about unregulated derivatives.

[Monk]

Ben, in the past I have tried to limit my interaction with you because I felt that our opinions on the subject of Global Warming were so obviously divergent and possibly entrenched that dialogue on the subject was likely to break down into bickering. But I'd like to try again and see if, knowing that we both have our differing opinions that are unlikely to change, we could converse regarding areas where we do agree.

For example, I agree with the statement above that you made. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the scientific method, as well as the process of peer review through which claims can be scrutinized. You appear to be exhibiting the same respect in the statement above, yet reject the predominant peer review findings on AGW. I say 'predominant' because I know you reject the 97% number; not sure whether you think it's closer to 80% or 70%, but even numbers that reduced still represent a predominant consensus. I'd rather not argue that point.

What I would like to know is if there is a specific peer reviewed published work that shows that global warming isn't caused by humans...could you give me a link to that article?

Again, I'm not attempting to operate under the pretense that either of our opinions will be changed. I'm just trying to understand how you arrived at your opinion from a scientific perspective.

Hi stillrobertpaulsen, that's the spirit....

The first thing to note is that there has been loads of discussion on this thread about the 97% consensus paper and I can't be bothered to get into all the details again except to say the 97% figure does not stand up when its methodologies are scrutinized by real climate scientists. For example Richard Tol, a UN IPCC Lead Author, has published two papers on it...Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis...but which are paywalled.

This article...97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists' Papers, according to the scientists that published them....gives some narrative and details of why the Cook et al paper is just plain flawed. Plenty of good reading there....and this important statement from Dr Tol.... "Consensus is irrelevant in science. There are plenty of examples in history where everyone agreed and everyone was wrong. Cook’s consensus is also irrelevant in policy. They try to show that climate change is real and human-made. It is does not follow whether and by how much greenhouse gas emissions should be reduced. The debate on climate policy is polarised, often using discussions about climate science as a proxy."

In a nutshell...Consensus is irrelevant in science. ...its not the 97% figure...nor does it matter what the real figure is even it could be assessed, because the degree of consensus, or lack thereof, does not reflect scientific truth. So here we have an actual agw climate scientist who has been active in the IPCC since 1994, serving in various roles in all its three working groups, most recently as a convening lead author for the fifth assessment report of working group II, arguing that Cook et al, in publishing flawed papers like the 97% consensus, are playing politics, not science...and are not doing the IPCC and real climate research any service.

As to peer reviewed skeptical papers on agw climate science...so much more reading for you here.....1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism.

So you see stillrobertpaulsen, I keep abreast of climate science developments on both sides...and the centre....known as the luke warmers such as Judith Curry. And I am pleased that we are can engage openly, but pleasantly, though we see things differently for now.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

See also the references at the end.

Finally, why not follow what skeptics wanted, which was to fund an independent study to resolve the matter?

"Bombshell: Koch-Funded Study Finds ‘Global Warming Is Real’, ‘On The High End’ And ‘Essentially All’ Due To Carbon Pollution"

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/0 ... pollution/

[Iamwhomiam]

speaking of hungry ghosts, if it is that bad, how are we going to feed ourselves?

- and whilst that may look off-topic now, dot dot dot

Think about it. And then think about today's most current meme that begins with the first letter of your name.

[82_28]

Right now we are "enjoying" a summer day in Seattle. In January.

[coffin_dodger]

It's winter here in the uk, nightimes about -1 to -3 degrees celcius, daytimes a bit higher. I've squashed 2 mosquitos today. Odd.

[Elihu]

Same thing with Many libertarians who think the way to battle lawlessness is to have even greater lawlessness.

on the contrary. there are hundreds upon thousands of laws on the books. everything that has been done has been completely "legal". lawless it is not. what the laws have been is hypocritical and unjust. that's why the overall impression holds. that's also why the world is in the shape that it is in. one class of people can do what they want because the "laws" say so. what is needed is law that obtains equally to the law writers and adjudicators as well as to everyone else. dare to think that dare be bold enough to insist upon it and a great many problems will resolve.

[zangtang]

you've stumped me.

[Nordic]

Same thing with Many libertarians who think the way to battle lawlessness is to have even greater lawlessness.

on the contrary. there are hundreds upon thousands of laws on the books. everything that has been done has been completely "legal". lawless it is not. what the laws have been is hypocritical and unjust. that's why the overall impression holds. that's also why the world is in the shape that it is in. one class of people can do what they want because the "laws" say so. what is needed is law that obtains equally to the law writers and adjudicators as well as to everyone else. dare to think that dare be bold enough to insist upon it and a great many problems will resolve.

Listen, I have a lot of respect for many libertarians. But usually insofar only as they see what the problems actually are. It's their supposed "solutions" that I see as completely ass backwards.

For instance, we have rampant corporate destruction of the environment. The solution to this is NOT to get rid of all federal environmental laws and have a free-for-all.

One of the reasons we have an unprecedented level of financial criminality occuring at the highest levels of banking and government is because Alan Greenspan was a libertarian who decided what the financial system needed was LESS regulation instead of MORE.

Sure there are tons of bad laws. Throw them out. But to keep criminals at bay you have to have good laws and regulations and you have to enforce them. Especially when it comes to the financial world, the environment, corporate malfeasance, voting, etc. etc. etc.

Without that, and without enforcement, the foxes take over the henhouses of the world.

Anything else is magical thinking. Which is my problem with the classic mainstream Libertarian approach. It purports to create a utopia through magical thinking. ANY system which purports to create a utopia through magical thinking is WAY on the wrong track.

[stillrobertpaulsen]

Oceans are warming so rapidly they are breaking scientific charts

By Megan Hamilton Jan 24, 2015 in Environment

Earlier this month the NOAA and NASA announced that 2014 was the hottest year ever recorded, shattering the previous records in 2005 and 2010.

Now comes the news that global warming is heating the world's oceans at an unprecedented pace.

There hasn't been a hiatus, slight pause or even a slowdown in any way of surface temperature warming, Think Progress reports. Most human-caused global warming heat winds up in the oceans, and this has prompted warming to accelerate in recent years.

And ocean temperatures are warming so fast that they keep breaking scientists' charts, Dr. John Abraham, a professor of thermal sciences wrote in The Guardian, Think Progress reports.



More than 90 percent of the planetary warming that's human-made goes into the oceans, but only two percent winds up in the atmosphere, and this means that small changes in ocean uptake can hugely impact ocean surface temperatures. This is one big reason why surface temperatures haven't appeared to warm as quickly as many people had expected in the past decade; even so, ocean warming has sped up, and sea levels are rising far faster than expected. Also Arctic sea ice has melted much faster than the scientific models expected, along with the great ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.

Alexander writes in The Guardian that warming is occurring so rapidly that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) has had to remake its graphs.

He notes that we often focus on the global temperature average, which is actually the average of air temperatures near ground level or at the sea surface, and yes, he adds that this past year global air temperatures broke records. However, this isn't the same as global warming. When viewed properly, global warming is the amount of heat contained within Earth's energy system. Alexander adds that air temperatures "may go up and down on any given year as energy moves to or from the air (primarily from the ocean)."

The media, Think Progress notes, needs to get the collective mote out of its eyes. By merely focusing on the hottest year on record, it keeps missing the real story that springs from scientific data and analysis. The human-caused uptick in surface air temperatures never paused ... never ... even ... slowed significantly. And this will likely precipitate a period of rapid surface temperature warming.

Dr. Gavin Schmidt is the director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies. Last week he tweeted: "Is there evidence that there is a significant change of trend from 1998? (Spoiler: No.)" He attached the following chart, which shows the latest data compiled by NASA, Think Progress notes. It doesn't paint a pretty picture.

The media needs to stop repeating the myth that there's been a hiatus or even a slowdown in global warming once and for all, Think Progress notes.

Otherwise, the next big story could very well be that surface warming starts accelerating soon. The lead author of one 2014 story said this:

""Scientists have long suspected that extra ocean heat uptake has slowed the rise of global average temperatures, but the mechanism behind the hiatus remained unclear ... But the heat uptake is by no means permanent: when the trade wind strength returns to normal –- as it inevitably will –- our research suggests heat will quickly accumulate in the atmosphere. So global [surface] temperatures look set to rise rapidly ..."
"
Combining this with the current record ocean temperatures, along with faster than expected warming of the ocean's surface layer, means that we can expect a continuation of the unprecedentedly rapid loss of Arctic sea ice and land-locked ice in Greenland and Antarctica, per Think Progress. This also means a likelihood of even more record-breaking weather extremes than we've seen in recent years, especially since humans have not stopped their climate-changing bad habits.



The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists pushed humanity's metaphorical doomsday clock up to three minutes to midnight –- largely because of the extreme weather events exacerbated by climate change and warming oceans, The Weather Network reports.
""This is about doomsday; this is about the end of civilization as we know it," bulletin executive director Kennette Benedict told reporters. "The probability of global catastrophe is very high, and the actions needed to reduce the risks of disaster must be taken very soon."
"
All this time we have been sleeping. It's time to wake up because our bed is burning.

[Nordic]