|
duck monster posted:Um. I'm not. You expressed doubt that the "hiatus" is happening. The 5 climate data sets all show a hiatus lasting from 2001 (or 1998). These are the Met Office/Hadley Centre (ground), NASA's Goddard Insitute (ground), NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (ground), Remote Sensing Systems (satellite), and finally the University of Alabama at Huntsville (satellite). The 13-year trend in global temperature is ~0 degrees C. Through the end of October 2013, it was actually a 1/100th of a degree decline on a decadal over that time period: http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/CotwinAndWay_2001.png
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
rivetz, main problem I have with the 97% number is that there's a double-talk element to it. When people question the severity of changes by 2100, the 97% number is thrown out as if you are disagreeing with the scientific community by not believing large/even cataclysmic change is coming. But the 97% number is a backwards-looking number that encompasses all of those that think that the climate has gotten warmer over the instrumental record and humanity contributed to it (I'd obviously be part of that 97% if I were a publishing scientist in the field). I'd say hanging out at the Daily Caller comment section is a pointless activity. If you want to read the blogs that I read to get the other side of the argument, those would be Climate Audit, the Blackboard, Roger Pielke Jr.'s blog, and occasionally Judith Curry's blog. I also check sea ice on Watt's page (southern hemisphere sea ice has seen incredible growth this year...global sea ice in 2013 peaked at the highest level since 1994)...the first week of the month Dr. Roy Spencer publishes the previous month's climate data...quarterly, the University of Colorado publishes the latest update on global sea levels on their website. Andrew Revkin at the NYT is a good read with Dot Earth/good follow on Twitter. Very good reporter in my estimation who questions quite a lot and takes a middle of the road approach. Conversely, Justin Gillis at the NYT is a sycophant but I think I've said that before. If you wanted to get a slice of the other side (a side that is actually investigating rather than prosthelytizing), those would be the places to go. Arkane fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Dec 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
Arkane posted:You expressed doubt that the "hiatus" is happening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
Arkane posted:You expressed doubt that the "hiatus" is happening. Ahh yes, the "hiatus" 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
You already pasted that graph to me, and I probably pointed out that it was multiple years out of date so it hides the true length of the pause. And the reason that the hiatus is stressed is because the models forecast(ed) EXPONENTIAL GROWTH in temperature. As I am sure you are keenly aware, it was predicted, POUNDED INTO OUR HEADS, that the temperature is going to be skyrocketing. Clicky on this, por favor: http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/ModelsObsComparison_2020.png Doesn't take coding in R to see that the climate models are biased warm based on our observations to date. You only need an eyeball or two. Arkane fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Dec 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 17:22
|
|
|
Arkane posted:You already pasted that graph to me, and I probably pointed out that it was multiple years out of date so it hides the true length of the pause. Do you realize the timescales that Earth's climate system operates on and how surface temperatures staying relatively the same for 12 years might not be relevant to the big picture?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 17:37
|
|
|
That's such a dangerous argument man. The fact that we cannot forecast the global temperature with any degree of precision over a 10 year period indicates that we know less than we thought we did about natural influences or that our models are wrong. But ceding the point to you...13 years isn't enough. Let's fast forward this thread 24 months to December of 2015 making it a 15 year (Jan 2001-Dec 2015) trend. Extend that observations/models line out another couple of years. Maybe increase the temp 1/20th of a degree if it suits your fancy. We're now below every single modeled run of every single climate model in the IPCC AR5 report. We're also now well outside the 95% confidence intervals that would signal model rejection in every other field that purports to undertake statistical analysis. Is the tenor of this thread still going to be that the Earth is careening toward disaster? I am guessing mostly yes, although it will probably be dialed back due to media coverage of the pause. Now imagine its December of 2018 and the pause is still happening, still not convinced? At this point the field would probably in an uproar. December 2020? Here's what I driving towards...at what point in this clear DIVERGENCE of climate models and observations will you start to seriously question whether the climate models are over-predicting? You can't keep pretending forever. The apocalypse illusion can only last for so long.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
Arkane posted:That's such a dangerous argument man. The fact that we cannot forecast the global temperature with any degree of precision over a 10 year period indicates that we know less than we thought we did about natural influences or that our models are wrong. We can forecast the global temperature with some degree of precision over a ten year period, so I guess? quote:Here's what I driving towards...at what point in this clear DIVERGENCE of climate models and observations will you start to seriously question whether the climate models are over-predicting? You can't keep pretending forever. The apocalypse illusion can only last for so long. When the arctic ice loss reverses itself
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
a lovely poster posted:We can forecast the global temperature with some degree of precision over a ten year period, so I guess? How about when models regularly exceed Arctic ice loss. Right now, they can't keep up, and modelers can't quite figure out why we are losing September ice so god drat fast. The ocean warming faster than expected is the best explanation. When we have an ice-free Arctic, poo poo is going to hit the fan, and fast.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
Arkane posted:You expressed doubt that the "hiatus" is happening. Correct. It isn't. You are deluded. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/abstract
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
Cowtan & Way found a fault in one data set that resulted in a minimal increase. The alteration is presented graphically here: http://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/cowtan_way_hadcrut_rcp85_5-95_perc.png Even with the change, the hiatus is still occurring. That error isn't found in the other 4 data sets afaik, as their polar coverage is adequate. Try again man. a lovely poster posted:When the arctic ice loss reverses itself How does this make sense as a response to my question? Arkane fucked around with this message at 19:35 on Dec 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
Arkane posted:How does this make sense as a response to my question? Because the decline in sea ice is more than what the models are predicting, which means models underestimate reality in that case?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Arkane posted:How does this make sense as a response to my question?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
Arkane posted:How does this make sense as a response to my question? You asked me quote:at what point in this clear DIVERGENCE of climate models and observations will you start to seriously question whether the climate models are over-predicting When they over-predict is my answer. The arctic is one clear area where that in fact is not happening. I agree with you that the climate system is more complex than most people like to admit, but I don't think the "errors" you're concerned about are terribly relevant to the discussion as a whole. a lovely poster fucked around with this message at 19:55 on Dec 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Cowtan & Way found a fault in one data set that resulted in a minimal increase. The alteration is presented graphically here: http://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/cowtan_way_hadcrut_rcp85_5-95_perc.png Despite being one of the more gloom and doom goons in this thread, I really like your posts because you do a great job evaluating both the forecast and the obsereved surface temperatures. If you just look at surface temperature and the associated stall it really does seem like global warming is no big deal. However I am unable to reconcile that viewpoint with the rapidly diminishing sea ice. Once the sea ice is gone do you think that might cause a change in our currently mild surface temperature trajectory? I would really like to hear your thoughts on sea ice, even if it doesn't directly relate to your earlier question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
Malgrin posted:When we have an ice-free Arctic, poo poo is going to hit the fan, and fast.  Also, it might be with noting that November 2013 was the warmest November ever:  Also also, I don't remember if this got mentioned when it was first announced but it probably bears repeating due to Yet Another Arkane Derail: it's estimated that the past 15 years of mean global temperature rise has been underestimated by a half due to the lack of Arctic measurements: quote:A new study by British and Canadian researchers shows that the global temperature rise of the past 15 years has been greatly underestimated. The reason is the data gaps in the weather station network, especially in the Arctic. If you fill these data gaps using satellite measurements, the warming trend is more than doubled in the widely used HadCRUT4 data, and the much-discussed “warming pause” has virtually disappeared. Go and find another flawed argument Arkane, and we'll see you in a couple of weeks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
Typically I just glaze past Arkane's posts, because hes full of poo poo and the most disingenuous human being on these forums. GUys, global warming isn't real. Ok ok, I mean, sure, its real, but its not BAD. Wait wait, GUYS, Global warming WAS real, but now it stopped, so relax.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
Yiggy posted:Typically I just glaze past Arkane's posts, because hes full of poo poo and the most disingenuous human being on these forums. Yeah, but at the very least, he causes this thread to rise up to the top again, meaning more people will discuss this issue on the forums.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
TACD you're clearly not reading my posts because I JUST talked about the Cowtan and Way paper that you are referencing. Like on this very page. In fact I posted an image which visualizes it. Here is another one: http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/CotwinAndWay_2001.png Even in the data set that is corrected, the pause doesn't disappear. Let alone the other 4 that do not need corrections.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
TehSaurus posted:If you just look at surface temperature and the associated stall it really does seem like global warming is no big deal. However I am unable to reconcile that viewpoint with the rapidly diminishing sea ice. Once the sea ice is gone do you think that might cause a change in our currently mild surface temperature trajectory? I would really like to hear your thoughts on sea ice, even if it doesn't directly relate to your earlier question. I think "no big deal" is not really what I am saying, although it may seem like that contrasted to this thread in particular. The Earth is going to change, albeit very slowly. I think we do not have evidence of any cataclysmic effects coming anytime soon and a lot of observational evidence that the risk is being over-predicted. I think as a species adaptation will not be all that difficult, considering how fast we are moving in terms of technology. As far as sea ice and what I know of it, the current understanding of arctic sea ice is that a complete summer arctic sea ice melt could happen in 30 to 40 years (granted, it would only be summer sea ice, and probably only very briefly). This would have an unknown effect on surface reflectivity of the Earth (albedo), although it is postulated that the Earth would become less reflective and would absorb more heat. I have seen conflicting arguments on that. Beyond that, I have no clue what ill effects would be seen. The ecosystem would be changed, but that has almost certainly happened in the past. Polar bears aren't going to drown or face extinctino. Al Gore had a bit on that in Inconvenient Truth based on the work of a scientist, who was subsequently fired for falsifying that research. It's been postulated that methane excretions would be accelerated in the arctic, but a Science article a couple years back said it wouldn't be anywhere bad as feared link. It's also been postulated that we'll see glacial melt accelerate, specifically in Greenland, but I have seen articles that there are physical limitations by which glacial melt can accelerate, that puts a significant damper on anyone predicting exponential acceleration. I believe it was in Nature. I am leaving so I don't have time to find it but I've posted it in this thread before. There was also another article on how we are starting to understand how glacial floes work, and that there are again limitations on how fast glaciers can melt. So there you go. Will edit in those papers later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Cowtan & Way found a fault in one data set that resulted in a minimal increase. The alteration is presented graphically here: http://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/cowtan_way_hadcrut_rcp85_5-95_perc.png It completely *negates* that "pause" dude. I mean you've plucked that out of an article that literally says there ISN'T a pause. quote:Combining their new method of infilling with the most up-to-date sea surface temperatures gives a substantially larger trend over the last 15 years than the abovementioned datasets do. The temporary slowdown in global surface warming (also dubbed “the pause”) nearly disappears. As Michael Tobis notes: Why did you ignore that? Why did you pull a graphic from an article that says more or less "The hiatus is a bust" and parade it as "The hiatus is real!". Are you dishonest or just out of your depth? The later isn't a personality fault, but it does suggest that perhaps you don't have as much of value to contribute to this as you think you do. Dunning Kruger is a hell of a drug dude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 22:54
|
|
|
Pause your pause nonsense: (from a 2011 study, red is adjusted for some sources of natural variability and pink is observations)
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I think "no big deal" is not really what I am saying, although it may seem like that contrasted to this thread in particular. The Earth is going to change, albeit very slowly. I think we do not have evidence of any cataclysmic effects coming anytime soon and a lot of observational evidence that the risk is being over-predicted. What would you define as a "cataclysmic event"?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
Arkane posted:As far as sea ice and what I know of it, the current understanding of arctic sea ice is that a complete summer arctic sea ice melt could happen in 30 to 40 years (granted, it would only be summer sea ice, and probably only very briefly). This would have an unknown effect on surface reflectivity of the Earth (albedo), although it is postulated that the Earth would become less reflective and would absorb more heat. Melting ice would not have an "unknown effect" on the Earth's albedo. The ice-albedo positive feedback is not controversial. Land and water are a lot less reflective than ice. Melting ice causes a positive feedback cycle that leads to the Earth absorbing more heat. This isn't "postulated," it's well studied and backed by evidence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
To rebut his points is to give the denier movement all they ever want, folks. Suddenly it looks like you're citing two equally valid piles of data.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 01:42
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:To rebut his points is to give the denier movement all they ever want, folks. Suddenly it looks like you're citing two equally valid piles of data. Not to mention giving validity to whatever blogs are being used as arguments, which is utter nonsense. I don't really care what some non-peer reviewed blog writer has to say about climate change data.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
Arkane posted:rivetz, main problem I have with the 97% number is that there's a double-talk element to it. When people question the severity of changes by 2100, the 97% number is thrown out as if you are disagreeing with the scientific community by not believing large/even cataclysmic change is coming. Nobody credible ever holds 97% up as evidence that a majority of scientists expect Dennis Quaid to be snowshoeing from DC to New York in 2100. It's held up when skeptics say that poo poo's gonna be fine in 2100 and there's nothing to worry about. The uncertainties in a dynamic system as complex as climatology make cataclysmic change one of an enormous number of possible scenarios, neither ruling out or mandating such change. quote:But the 97% number is a backwards-looking number that encompasses all of those that think that the climate has gotten warmer over the instrumental record and humanity contributed to it (I'd obviously be part of that 97% if I were a publishing scientist in the field). code:quote:I'd say hanging out at the Daily Caller comment section is a pointless activity. ?? I certainly don't go there to get climate news, I go there for the sole purpose of presenting a counterargument to folks like you. quote:If you want to read the blogs that I read to get the other side of the argument, Yeeeah no I don't, see, the problem is that those words take as long to read and process as these other words on these other sites that represent the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, so they tend to wind up at the bottom of the pile for me  . Maybe if they can round up like another few dozen active, qualified scientists who don't think the skeptic position is largely bullshit, maybe get the count up over...sixty? Can we shoot for that and then they could carpool over to my place to discussBizarro Watt posted:Not to mention giving validity to whatever blogs are being used as arguments, which is utter nonsense. I don't really care what some free-of-the-sinister-international-conspiracy blog writer has to say about climate change data. rivetz fucked around with this message at 08:18 on Dec 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 08:03
|
|
|
Arkane posted:As far as sea ice and what I know of it, the current understanding of arctic sea ice is that a complete summer arctic sea ice melt could happen in 30 to 40 years (granted, it would only be summer sea ice, and probably only very briefly). This would have an unknown effect on surface reflectivity of the Earth (albedo), although it is postulated that the Earth would become less reflective and would absorb more heat. I have seen conflicting arguments on that. Beyond that, I have no clue what ill effects would be seen. The ecosystem would be changed, but that has almost certainly happened in the past. Polar bears aren't going to drown or face extinctino. Al Gore had a bit on that in Inconvenient Truth based on the work of a scientist, who was subsequently fired for falsifying that research. It's been postulated that methane excretions would be accelerated in the arctic, but a Science article a couple years back said it wouldn't be anywhere bad as feared link. It's also been postulated that we'll see glacial melt accelerate, specifically in Greenland, but I have seen articles that there are physical limitations by which glacial melt can accelerate, that puts a significant damper on anyone predicting exponential acceleration. I believe it was in Nature. I am leaving so I don't have time to find it but I've posted it in this thread before. There was also another article on how we are starting to understand how glacial floes work, and that there are again limitations on how fast glaciers can melt. So there you go. Will edit in those papers later. That makes sense. I would like to see the articles, but honestly I don't think I will have time for them. Maybe over the holiday. Suffice it to say that there are some areas of unsettled science with respect to the details of what sea ice loss will mean, and the rate at which it will occur. I am skeptical about the limitations on the speed of glacier melt being compelling given the accelerating and consistently underestimated rate of (land) glacier loss. Obviously it would be great if the planet has a lower climate sensitivity than we thought, but I cannot say that it seems likely given the current state of the field. Thanks for providing your thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 15:35
|
|
|
TehSaurus posted:That makes sense. I would like to see the articles, but honestly I don't think I will have time for them. Maybe over the holiday. Suffice it to say that there are some areas of unsettled science with respect to the details of what sea ice loss will mean, and the rate at which it will occur. I am skeptical about the limitations on the speed of glacier melt being compelling given the accelerating and consistently underestimated rate of (land) glacier loss. And another mammoth gets caught in the tar pits. I hope you're getting paid for this Arkane.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:And another mammoth gets caught in the tar pits. I hope you're getting paid for this Arkane. I have asked about his interests several times. He has declined to respond.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
TehSaurus posted:That makes sense. I would like to see the articles, but honestly I don't think I will have time for them. Maybe over the holiday. Suffice it to say that there are some areas of unsettled science with respect to the details of what sea ice loss will mean, and the rate at which it will occur. I am skeptical about the limitations on the speed of glacier melt being compelling given the accelerating and consistently underestimated rate of (land) glacier loss. That scientist who did the work on polar bears wasn't fired for falsifying research and was cleared of any alleged scientific misconduct; it involved unrelated shenanigans that don't bring his results into question. http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/10/cleared-of-misconduct-polar-bear-researcher-is-reprimanded-for-leaked-emails.html The Science "article" that Arkane is referring to regarding methane is interesting, but isn't a peer-reviewed research paper (Which is definitely what he was trying to imply). This kind of tomfoolery by Arkane is par for the course, which is why people who've been contributing to these climate change threads for a while don't bother listening to him. His mentioning of a Nature paper backing up one of his points but saying he doesn't have time to find it is pretty typical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:And another mammoth gets caught in the tar pits. I hope you're getting paid for this Arkane. To be clear, I don't agree with Arkane's view at all (it is right there in my post, I do not think there is sufficient compelling evidence to state that we have undersold the climate sensitivity of the planet.) I think he's on the wrong side of the science and that the climate outlook is genuinely grim. However, he does a good job of presenting a coherent view from an opposition perspective which includes actual science and results (assuming that he's not just pretending to have sources for the assertions on glacier melt and reflectivity) as opposed to the typical climate denier. This is good because it shows us that maybe some of these details are worth exploring more fully in order to create better arguments and a clearer picture of the future. I mean, I think we need to stop burning fossil fuels yesterday. I just want to know what a not-crazy climate denier argument looks like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 18:38
|
|
|
It looks like $.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
TehSaurus posted:I just want to know what a not-crazy climate denier argument looks like. Presumably they are made on other planets where there's a real debate about whether it's happening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
TehSaurus posted:However, he does a good job of presenting a coherent view from an opposition perspective which includes actual science and results (assuming that he's not just pretending to have sources for the assertions on glacier melt and reflectivity) as opposed to the typical climate denier. This is good because it shows us that maybe some of these details are worth exploring more fully in order to create better arguments and a clearer picture of the future. But most of the big denier blogs and whatever already do this - they have plenty of sources and cherry-picked data, and then they put it together in such a way as to build the picture they want. It just doesn't hold up to any scrutiny, purely because it's a ramshackle house of cards instead of broad, coherent and robust science. The mistake you're making is thinking that this stuff comes into being out of a genuine misunderstanding of climate science and research. It doesn't. Making the arguments clearer won't do anything but make it slightly harder for bullshit to fly - I say harder because it doesn't actually stop it. There are claims and talking points that have been addressed and debunked ad nauseum, and they still continue to be trotted out, especially in popular media. It's a narrative looking for supporting evidence, not the other way around
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
TehSaurus posted:I mean, I think we need to stop burning fossil fuels yesterday. I just want to know what a not-crazy climate denier argument looks like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
TehSaurus posted:To be clear, I don't agree with Arkane's view at all (it is right there in my post, I do not think there is sufficient compelling evidence to state that we have undersold the climate sensitivity of the planet.) I think he's on the wrong side of the science and that the climate outlook is genuinely grim. However, he does a good job of presenting a coherent view from an opposition perspective which includes actual science and results (assuming that he's not just pretending to have sources for the assertions on glacier melt and reflectivity) as opposed to the typical climate denier. This is good because it shows us that maybe some of these details are worth exploring more fully in order to create better arguments and a clearer picture of the future. No, he trots the same 5-6 arguments in circles , which then get comprehensively shot down in flames and then he just ignores it and starts again until all thats really left to do is to tell him to go away because its pretty loving tireing having the same drat argument in a loop forever. It gets even more painful when your living in a country adjusting to a new reality that every year for the past decade we're being hit with what was once once-per-century catastrophes and then some git comes along and says "Buuutttt this study says it isnt reaalllll" (and then when you read it it says the oposite). Right, I'll keep it in mind paddling my upside down house down the road*. Its dishonest and frankly pretty boring. *Don't actually have an upside down house or even flooding, but I sure as gently caress know people who have had that poo poo go on in the last few years. Excuse the colorful prose!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
duck monster posted:Right, I'll keep it in mind paddling my upside down house down the road*. Its dishonest and frankly pretty boring. Sounded like you were throwing a jab at the economy in there, lots of people are upside down on their home loans lately.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 21:06
|
|
|
Uranium Phoenix posted:Melting ice would not have an "unknown effect" on the Earth's albedo. The ice-albedo positive feedback is not controversial. Land and water are a lot less reflective than ice. Melting ice causes a positive feedback cycle that leads to the Earth absorbing more heat. This isn't "postulated," it's well studied and backed by evidence. Not as simple as that. The Arctic has clouds that are found to warm the surface during most of the year, but summer clouds (when sea ice melts) cool the surface: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2000JC000439/abstract With melting sea ice there is more open ocean; cloud formation would be expected to increase in the summer months. This would mean a higher reflectivity and a decrease in solar radiation that hits the surface. Now there are differing wavelengths of radiation that can penetrate clouds, hence the reason that I erred on the side of a positive albedo feedback when I responded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
I'm just going to go ahead and repeat myself here:Inglonias posted:
See, because I look and all I find is that things just keep getting worse. So I ask one more time: Is there any reason I shouldn't give up here yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2013 22:48
|
|
