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

Happy_Misanthrope posted:

Welp looks like we got a new thread titl- ah never mind close enough

If We Release a Small Fraction of Arctic Carbon, 'We're hosed': Climatologist

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


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...

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.

SavageGentleman posted:

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 posted:

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.

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.

Including 2013. "hiatus"

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.

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.

Tropical species are increasingly moving into temperate seas, a bluefin tuna has been caught off Greenland, and Britons are facing having to change the way they eat fish and chips, all as a result of the climate change, say researchers. Marine ecologist, Dr. Adriana Vergés, of Australia's New South Wales University, says: “The magnitude of the change is so large that it is very obvious.”

The sceptics base their claim on just one measurement of warming, the temperature of air near the earth's surface , whose increase has indeed slowed down recently, though it has not stopped growing. This is the most obvious indicator to humanity, since it records the conditions in which we live, but it is only one of several used by scientists – and not the most important of them. Others include the amount of ice at the poles and in glacier which, in total, has been shrinking dramatically, and the continuing warming of the oceans – where almost all the extra heat ends up – which is particularly marked in some areas.

Sea temperatures around Britain, for example, have risen by 1.6 per cent – four times the global average – over the last quarter of century partly because they are relatively shallow, and partly because three of them (the Irish and North Seas and the English Channel) are partially enclosed. As a result, says Prof Callum Roberts of York University, “15 of the 36 species surveyed in the North East have shifted latitudes”, moving, on average, 300 km northwards.

Cod and haddock, for example, are now rarely found wild in British waters. They are being replaced by warmer water species like sea bass, hake, gurnard, red mullet and anchovies, while John Dory – once only found off Cornwall – has spread through the North Sea up to Scotland. Diets, however, have yet to change to match.

Even more dramatically, three bluefin tuna – a Mediterranean species – have been caught within 100 miles of the Arctic circle in what Prof Duncan MacKenzie of Denmark's National Institute of Aquatic Resources called “the first scientifically confirmed presence of the species in East Greenland waters in 342 years”.

He added that the catching tuna, which he thinks were part of a school of up to 100, “demonstrates that a large, highly mobile fish species is changing its range and distribution towards northern regions”.

Tropical fish are invading Japanese waters, the Eastern Mediterranean and even the US Atlantic seaboard, often stripping kelp forests bare. The emerald parrot fish has increased 22 fold in the northern Gulf of Mexico, while angel fish and Florida stone crab are appearing off the Carolinas. “People are seeing these fish all over the world in unexpected places”, says Prof. Ken Heck of the University of South Alabama. “I don't think there is any question that the movement of many tropical species is related to the warming of coastal waters.”

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.

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.

Radbot posted:

So what's your point?

Nevvy Z posted:

Never ever think about any kind of action.

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.

Salt Fish posted:

Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty

Evil_Greven posted:

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.

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.

Nevvy Z posted:

Never ever think about any kind of action.

Radbot posted:

I just wonder how many people forums poster Arkane thinks he's convincing with his 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.

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.

Arkane posted:

Were we indeed facing radical temperature changes to the planet, radical solutions would be needed.

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.

gently caress trophy 2k14 posted:

We should probably just start empty quoting this every page.

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.

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.

Rime posted:

So, how about these methane blowholes in Russia. Sensationalized? Too soon to tell?

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).

In conclusion, despite recent explosions suggesting the contrary, I still feel that the future of Earth’s climate in this century and beyond will be determined mostly by the fossil fuel industry, and not by Arctic methane. We should keep our eyes on the ball.

Evil_Greven posted:

Hahaha. No. You are neither reading nor comprehending my point at all. Let's revisit what you wrote:

In order for a trend to be statistically significant, it must be drastic and have enough data points such that the trend is outside the scope set by your confidence interval (2σ being ~95%). Because of this, a statistically insignificant trend does not mean there isn't a trend. This is why I provided time snippets (like your 2001 to 2014 snippet) all the way back to the beginning of the record to illustrate this point.

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.

quote:

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