|
QuarkJets posted:Hawaii is about to get slammed with 2 hurricanes in the same week. That seems like a pretty significant climate event that doesn't ever usually happen IF you are going to make this argument, be prepared to hear the opposite argument when <weather event> exhibits decreased frequency for whatever period of time due to natural variation, or due to the fact that there isn't really any evidence that ACC increases hurricane frequency, only intensity. http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming-intermediate.htm Happy_Misanthrope posted:Welp looks like we got a new thread titl- ah never mind close enough On a similar note, there may be some evidence for accelerated methane release in the Arctic also (sensationalist headline incoming, THANKS BEZOS) http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...t-good/?hpid=z1 Makes me think someone should start working on a geo-engineering plan for the arctic, seeding sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere or something. Something like that probably appeals to Putin anyway...
|
# ? Aug 7, 2014 08:25 |
|
|
# ? May 31, 2024 05:52 |
|
SKELETONS posted:IF you are going to make this argument, be prepared to hear the opposite argument when <weather event> exhibits decreased frequency for whatever period of time due to natural variation, or due to the fact that there isn't really any evidence that ACC increases hurricane frequency, only intensity. http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming-intermediate.htm There are already test sites for giant insulating blankets. I am sure that will all work out fine.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2014 09:15 |
Speaking about Sibera, there's more fascinating news: Not only are there stilltens of thousands of square miles of peat bog on fire, nope, now there are also massive explosions of methane deposits in the thawing permasoil: The thawing mix of methane, water, sand and minerals is highly unstable and can violently detonate, leaving craters with a depth of up to 300ft. The image itself makes it hard to get a proper view of the crater, so here's a video where scientists get a closer look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDAVtjSadGg&t=58s. With further warming, we can expect this to become an ubiquitous event, driving us yet closer to a status quo the resembles crazy dystopian sci-fi visions of the future. SavageGentleman fucked around with this message at 09:58 on Aug 7, 2014 |
|
# ? Aug 7, 2014 09:22 |
|
Pimpmust posted:At this point there's nothing really that's gonna stop that from happening, is there? Between the Arctic, Siberia and all the Fracking leaks there's a whole lot of Methane getting out there. Sure there is, but anyone who's realistic in their thinking knows that it's never gonna happen in time. The propaganda machine has won, or at least delayed action long enough.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2014 11:31 |
|
SavageGentleman posted:Speaking about Sibera, there's more fascinating news: Hahaha awesome. We've hosed the climate to a degree that the ground is literally exploding, but no one is going to give a poo poo because it isn't happening in Joe the Plumber's front lawn.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2014 18:26 |
|
Seriously if someone in early 2013 said "guys this is so hosed up, at the rate we're going the ground is going to start exploding so violently it will leave 300 foot craters next year" Arkane would have posted a bunch of graphs showing how only the most fringe leftist of scientists believe something so ridiculous, and even if the ground did start spontaneously combusting we realistically would only see 5-10 foot deep craters max until the end of the century. Hell even I would have thought the claim would be a bit hyperbolic.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2014 18:37 |
|
Yawning Siberian ground-buttholes can be the new lotus seed pod.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2014 20:07 |
|
Just waiting for some giant methane cloud to ascend out of the depths of the pacific and smother/explode all of Japan at this rate
|
# ? Aug 7, 2014 21:20 |
|
I posted that hole in the ground a while ago. I also found out that they think it very slowly pushed its way out of the ground rather than exploding. That's why the lower part is so regular.
|
# ? Aug 7, 2014 22:08 |
|
so rather than an explosion it was basically a giant, continental fart cool
|
# ? Aug 7, 2014 22:26 |
|
Climate Change thread: Make a Siberian booty go faaaaart
|
# ? Aug 7, 2014 23:24 |
|
computer parts posted:Yep, shifting agriculture out of formerly desert areas (or even just making those systems twice as efficient which is definitely possible) would literally give you 20 times the effect as mandating lower residential use. It's funny that nature is going to force us to stop farming in the deserts of Southern Arizona for the second time in 500 years. We truly have learned nothing. Despite that, the Phoenix area does have an atrocious problem with lawns, golf courses, lakes in front of suburban subdivisions and all sorts of other ridiculous residential waste.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 13:49 |
|
Revkin interviewed a woman from Russia who is purportedly an expert in this area, and she said the hole appeared to be normal and part of lake formation. Interview is a little hard to understand, but here it is: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/25/fresh-focus-on-siberian-permafrost-as-second-hole-is-reported/ In other news, and unfortunately for California, the chances of an El Nino forming this year have decreased, and the chance of a strong El Nino have decreased dramatically (El Nino = wetter California, usually). Looks unlikely we'll set an all-time high year temperature-wise. Through July temps, we're running about the same as 2013, so the hiatus continues for another year barring a very hot fall. Also looks like arctic sea ice will expand again this year, but that could also change with a hot next couple of months.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 15:49 |
|
9 of the last 20 years were so hot that they were statistical outliers for the last 134 years, significant at a 95% confidence interval. Including 2013. "hiatus" Oh yeah, and NOAA reckons this June the warmest on record, as well as this May and April. Three consecutive months being the warmest ever, according to their data. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Aug 8, 2014 |
# ? Aug 8, 2014 17:28 |
|
Evil_Greven posted:9 of the last 20 years were so hot that they were statistical outliers for the last 134 years, significant at a 95% confidence interval. Yeah temperatures rose until 2000, and have plateaued starting in 2001. That's the hiatus/pause. Warming will almost certainly continue at some point.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 17:32 |
|
Arkane posted:Yeah temperatures rose until 2000, and have plateaued starting in 2001. That's the hiatus/pause. Warming will almost certainly continue at some point. You are mistaken, warming is still happening. The only data set that says otherwise is RSS (or if you are using 2001 as the start date, also HADCRUT4) - look at some others for the same range. Put in the start date of 1998 and the end date of 2011, and RSS alone claims it's loving cooling. RSS is messed the hell up. From GISTEMP index: 2σ = 0.57 °C 1998: +0.61 °C 1999: +0.40 °C 2000: +0.40 °C 2001: +0.52 °C 2002: +0.61 °C 2003: +0.60 °C 2004: +0.51 °C 2005: +0.65 °C 2006: +0.59 °C 2007: +0.62 °C 2008: +0.49 °C 2009: +0.59 °C 2010: +0.66 °C 2011: +0.54 °C 2012: +0.57 °C 2013: +0.59 °C The year-to-date average for 2014 is +0.63 °C. Every single statistically significant year is in the last 16 years. Only two years prior to 1998 were warm enough to fall within the >= +0.40 °C range: 1997: +0.45 °C 1995: +0.42 °C I was born in 1981, which was +0.28 °C. That was the hottest year on record up until 1987. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 18:09 on Aug 8, 2014 |
# ? Aug 8, 2014 18:03 |
|
quote:Global warming, climate sceptics keep staying, has stopped for the last 16 years or so. But nobody seems to have told the fish, who keep moving towards the poles as previously cool waters warm up.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 18:27 |
|
Evil_Greven posted:You are mistaken, warming is still happening. The only data set that says otherwise is RSS (or if you are using 2001 as the start date, also HADCRUT4) - look at some others for the same range. Put in the start date of 1998 and the end date of 2011, and RSS alone claims it's loving cooling. RSS is messed the hell up. If we start with the year 2001, which is not dominated by either an El Nino or a La Nina, using the SkS tool you just linked, the decadal trends from 2001 to 2014 are: -.06C (RSS), .05C (UAH), .05C (HadCRUT Hybrid), -.00C (NOAA), and .02C (GISTEMP). Taken together, these trends are indistinguishable from 0. That's the hiatus. Over that time period there has been ~no trend in temperature, so it'd be factually incorrect to say that warming (or more precisely, significant warming) is happening over that period of time. Conversely, the amount of warming that is "expected" over this time period is most easily expressed as .02 * 14 or .28C. And that's the reason that the hiatus needs explanation, be it trade winds, ocean mixing, overestimation of climate sensitivity, AMO/PDO, or what have you.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 18:41 |
|
Oops, I did miss NOAA when looking at that absurdly small time range. Arkane, look at different historical temperatures (for GISTEMP, since others don't go back that far). Here's an example of a few ranges you should check out (blank start and end seems to be 1880 through 2013): Start: (blank) End: 1925 = -0.027 °C/decade ±0.031 (not significant) Start: 1925 End: 1940 = +0.147 °C/decade ±0.151 (not significant) Start: 1940 End: 1970 = -0.017 °C/decade ±0.053 (not significant) Start: 1970 End: 1980 = +0.095 °C/decade ±0.284 (not significant) Start: 1980 End: 1996 = +0.102 °C/decade ±0.149 (not significant) Start: 1996 End: (blank) = +0.107 °C/decade ±0.109 (not significant) So we've not had any warming since 1880, right? I mean, it's not been significantly different from 0 so clearly nothing is happening. Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Aug 8, 2014 |
# ? Aug 8, 2014 19:17 |
|
So what's your point?
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 19:23 |
|
Radbot posted:So what's your point? Never ever think about any kind of action.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 19:32 |
|
We're basically completely hosed anyways. Any more emissions we crap out is just icing on the big "gently caress Off Humanity" cake that fate has in store for us.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 19:37 |
|
Nevvy Z posted:Never ever think about any kind of action. I just wonder how many people forums poster Arkane thinks he's convincing with his data? I mean I think I'd rather trust a scientist over a banker when it comes to data that needs to stand up to rigorous analysis. I readily admit I don't understand most of the data being presented.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 19:44 |
|
If I remember correctly, Arkane's argument about the hiatus last time centered on a quote by a scientist who said that a 15 year hiatus is statistically unlikely in their models, and it doesn't happen 98% of the time. He then pointed to the 15 year period from 98-2013 as proof, despite the whole outlier El Nino thing. When duly corrected, he disappeared for a while and then started up about 2001-2014, despite that not being a 15 year cycle.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 21:23 |
|
Arkane's favorite book on climate change was written by an adjunct professor of business who was cited by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty for fabrication of data, selective discarding of unwanted results, deliberately misleading use of statistical methods, distorted interpretation of conclusions, and plagiarism. Okay, well see you guys later.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 21:34 |
|
terrordactle posted:We're basically completely hosed anyways. Any more emissions we crap out is just icing on the big "gently caress Off Humanity" cake that fate has in store for us. I agree. We shouldn't attempt to do anything because it's all futile.
|
# ? Aug 9, 2014 00:16 |
|
Salt Fish posted:Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty Those folks must be the world's greatest experts at frowning deeply.
|
# ? Aug 9, 2014 01:27 |
|
Evil_Greven posted:Oops, I did miss NOAA when looking at that absurdly small time range. This is a disingenuous argument man. You're implying that because temperature paused in the past (or warmed slowly), that this one is insignificant. The fact that it gets serious discussion, with multiple papers & multiple theories to explain why it is occurring, belies your point. Pauses have happened in the past, no doubt. This is a completely & unanticipated halt in temperature rise. The trend since 2001 either 0 or real close to it. Also belying your point is that the hiatus has gone on for so long that estimates of climate sensitive are dropping precipitously with the added data. And it should open you up to the very realistic possibility that the climate system is dramatically less prone to positive-feedback loops than was otherwise hypothesized/assumed/hyped.
|
# ? Aug 9, 2014 04:45 |
|
Arkane posted:This is a disingenuous argument man. You're implying that because temperature paused in the past (or warmed slowly), that this one is insignificant. The fact that it gets serious discussion, with multiple papers & multiple theories to explain why it is occurring, belies your point. Pauses have happened in the past, no doubt. This is a completely & unanticipated halt in temperature rise. The trend since 2001 either 0 or real close to it. Also belying your point is that the hiatus has gone on for so long that estimates of climate sensitive are dropping precipitously with the added data. And it should open you up to the very realistic possibility that the climate system is dramatically less prone to positive-feedback loops than was otherwise hypothesized/assumed/hyped.
|
# ? Aug 9, 2014 04:50 |
|
Nevvy Z posted:Never ever think about any kind of action. Well we're not doing much of anything right now and the Earth isn't careening towards disaster last time I checked, in fact the opposite is occurring with poverty on the global scale being eradicated on the fastest pace in human history. Humanity is getting healthier, wealthier, and smarter by leaps and bounds. Free markets and democracy are a hell of a thing. Usually my posts are directed at those that assume, many times at odds with even the worst case scientific predictions, that there will be extreme negative effects (often very soon!). The "Earth will become Venus" guy on the last page is pretty low-hanging fruit but that's a recent example...alternatively you can look to the guy talking about methane missiles in Siberia becoming "ubiquitous" in the future...or the guy who probably has no idea what is going on but thinks that "we're basically completely hosed anyways." Just a breathtaking amount of ignorance in this thread. There's 163 pages of posts like that. Reminds me of the George Carlin joke about people watching the news and wanting to see disasters. Were we indeed facing radical temperature changes to the planet, radical solutions would be needed. But we're not, and I doubt we will. Or should I say, it'll go so slowly that it's almost a certainty that technology unfathomable to us today can provide solutions. You can see the marketplace moving right now. I'm getting solar panels on my house like 5 days from now; I live in a very sunny area, and it makes economic sense for me to do it rather than pay my electricity company. A decade from now, solar panels could be inexpensive and efficient enough that they're a usual option on a new home. We're 3 years away from a mass-produced electric car. Neither of those innovations is going to make much of a dent in carbon emissions, but innovation and inventions in our free market system constantly adapt to face new challenges and opportunities, and that ain't gonna stop. Radbot posted:I just wonder how many people forums poster Arkane thinks he's convincing with his data? Who knows. Although it's not "my" data. Kafka Esq. posted:If I remember correctly, Arkane's argument about the hiatus last time centered on a quote by a scientist who said that a 15 year hiatus is statistically unlikely in their models, and it doesn't happen 98% of the time. He then pointed to the 15 year period from 98-2013 as proof, despite the whole outlier El Nino thing. When duly corrected, he disappeared for a while and then started up about 2001-2014, despite that not being a 15 year cycle. I really doubt you are remembering correctly. The paper uses that time period, although likely 1998 to 2012 for a 15 year window. I don't remember the exact post, but I am guessing the point was to highlight the rarity of that length of a pause in temperature rise. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that a pause of that length would be an extreme outlier, given the aggressive forecasts for 2100. Arkane fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Aug 9, 2014 |
# ? Aug 9, 2014 04:51 |
|
Kafka Esq. posted:Reading the science would be better than wildly hypothesizing, Arkane. Get some recently published data on whether this represents anything to do with positive feedback loops being "dramatically less" or anything similar to it, and we can discuss. I've cited the studies that have lowered sensitivity estimates, which is inclusive of all of the expected feedbacks....just click on the question mark under my red av and I'm sure you'll find them easily. Not gonna go in circles with you man and re-post the same stuff ad nauseam.
|
# ? Aug 9, 2014 04:55 |
|
Be sure to click on my question mark too for a post showing how Arkane's interpretation of Otto (his favorite climate sens study to quote-mine) is at odds with both his own past posts and, well, Otto himself.
|
# ? Aug 9, 2014 05:27 |
|
Arkane posted:Were we indeed facing radical temperature changes to the planet, radical solutions would be needed. What is your threshold for 'radical temperature changes' and what would constitute sufficient proof, to you, that we were facing them? Do you consider heat being absorbed by the ocean to be 'warming' or does only atmospheric heat content matter for the purposes of weather patterns and ecosystem stability? What is the severity of, and appropriate adaptation strategy for, carbon-related issues that are at least partially independent of temperature change, most notably ocean acidification?
|
# ? Aug 9, 2014 05:53 |
|
Salt Fish posted:Arkane's favorite book on climate change was written by an adjunct professor of business who was cited by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty for fabrication of data, selective discarding of unwanted results, deliberately misleading use of statistical methods, distorted interpretation of conclusions, and plagiarism. Okay, well see you guys later. We should probably just start empty quoting this every page.
|
# ? Aug 9, 2014 05:54 |
|
gently caress trophy 2k14 posted:We should probably just start empty quoting this every page. Perhaps the former German minister of education should write his next favourite book then
|
# ? Aug 9, 2014 20:32 |
|
Arkane posted:This is a disingenuous argument man. You're implying that because temperature paused in the past (or warmed slowly), that this one is insignificant. The fact that it gets serious discussion, with multiple papers & multiple theories to explain why it is occurring, belies your point. Pauses have happened in the past, no doubt. This is a completely & unanticipated halt in temperature rise. The trend since 2001 either 0 or real close to it. Also belying your point is that the hiatus has gone on for so long that estimates of climate sensitive are dropping precipitously with the added data. And it should open you up to the very realistic possibility that the climate system is dramatically less prone to positive-feedback loops than was otherwise hypothesized/assumed/hyped. Arkane posted:If we start with the year 2001, which is not dominated by either an El Nino or a La Nina, using the SkS tool you just linked, the decadal trends from 2001 to 2014 are: -.06C (RSS), .05C (UAH), .05C (HadCRUT Hybrid), -.00C (NOAA), and .02C (GISTEMP). Taken together, these trends are indistinguishable from 0. That's the hiatus. Over that time period there has been ~no trend in temperature, so it'd be factually incorrect to say that warming (or more precisely, significant warming) is happening over that period of time. What happens if you don't pick 2001 as the start point? Why not 2000? (land/ocean) GISTEMP: +0.070 °C/decade ±0.150 NOAA: +0.041 °C/decade ±0.141 HADCRUT4: +0.042 °C/decade ±0.139 HADCRUT4 Hybrid: +0.105 °C/decade ±0.176 (land) BEST: +0.145 °C/decade ±0.354 NOAA: +0.044 °C/decade ±0.141 (satellite) RSS: -0.005 °C/decade ±0.231 UAG: +0.113 °C/decade ±0.233 Oh. Right. It doesn't say what you want it to. A similar thing happens if you run the trend calculator from 2001 to 2011 (because 2010 was really loving hot). I'm curious - why do you (and others) average together entirely different data sets to claim they say something that they don't? RSS is frequently an outlier (thus beloved by skeptics) when compared to other data sets, yet you want to average its trend together with trends from a select few other data sets to get the 'essentially 0 trend' that you want to see. Seems disingenuous. Here's something not cool (using the previous GISTEMP data): In 1981, the 10-year moving average annual temperature was +0.079 °C In 1991, the 10-year moving average annual temperature was +0.232 °C In 2001, the 10-year moving average annual temperature was +0.378 °C In 2011, the 10-year moving average annual temperature was +0.586 °C Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Aug 9, 2014 |
# ? Aug 9, 2014 23:08 |
|
So apparently, Michael Mann filed a defamation suit over the national reviews dishonest coverage of his story. NR's attempt to get the case thrown out didn't go over in the first round. Now they're trying to appeal that decision. I hope they take it right up the rear end. http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/08/06/michael-mann-s-opponents-hockey-stick-defamation-case-regurgitate-half-truths-new-court-filing
|
# ? Aug 11, 2014 12:06 |
|
So, how about these methane blowholes in Russia. Sensationalized? Too soon to tell?
|
# ? Aug 21, 2014 04:47 |
|
Rime posted:So, how about these methane blowholes in Russia. Sensationalized? Too soon to tell? The latter most likely - at this point at least. David Archer at Real Climate weighs in: quote:Siberia has explosion holes in it that smell like methane, and there are newly found bubbles of methane in the Arctic Ocean. As a result, journalists are contacting me assuming that the Arctic Methane Apocalypse has begun. However, as a climate scientist I remain much more concerned about the fossil fuel industry than I am about Arctic methane. Short answer: It would take about 20,000,000 such eruptions within a few years to generate the standard Arctic Methane Apocalypse that people have been talking about quote:It is certainly believable that warming ocean waters could trigger an increase in methane emissions to the atmosphere, and that the time scale for changing ocean temperatures can be fast due to circulation changes (we are seeing the same thing in the Antarctic). But the time scale for heat to diffuse into the sediment, where methane hydrate can be found, should be slow, like that for permafrost on land or slower. More importantly, the atmospheric methane flux from the Arctic Ocean is really small (extrapolating estimates from Kort et al 2012), even compared with emissions from the Arctic land surface, which is itself only a few percent of global emissions (dominated by human sources and tropical wetlands).
|
# ? Aug 21, 2014 14:50 |
|
|
# ? May 31, 2024 05:52 |
Evil_Greven posted:Hahaha. No. You are neither reading nor comprehending my point at all. Let's revisit what you wrote: Arkane disingenuous? Say it ain't so! (Don't you love how your post banished him into the wilderness once more? I wonder how long it will be before he comes back to change subjects.) quote:Here's something not cool (using the previous GISTEMP data): Wrap it up Earthailures.
|
|
# ? Aug 21, 2014 14:56 |