Recent Comments

Prev  491  492  493  494  495  496  497  498  499  500  501  502  503  504  505  506  Next

Comments 24901 to 24950:

24901. CBDunkerson at 22:07 PM on 24 March 2016
       How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
       

       ryland #14: "All of those who I have mentioned are persona non grata at this site..."

       Reality: Every major climate publication and pronouncement made by each of those people is discussed in detail on this site. Some of them, and other prominent skeptics, have taken part in discussion on this site... often at the express invitation of the moderators. None of them are barred from the site or in any way discouraged from participating.

       See, this is the problem with global warming 'skeptics'. Much of what they 'know' about the subject is demonstrably false. They aren't 'skeptical' at all, but rather shockingly credulous... of misinformation.

24902. CBDunkerson at 21:49 PM on 24 March 2016
       How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
       

       # 7 JWRebel: " ... a psychopath like Hillary scares me ... "

       #13 shoyemore: "Not sure where that is coming from ..."

       It is fairly middle of the road for US conservative belief (i.e. yes, it is false, but there are some views that make it seem reasonable by comparison). Personally, I don't like Hillary, but she is hands down the least scary conservative running this year. Another four years of policies similar to what Obama has followed won't cause massive damage to the country and/or world at large. You really can't say that for ANY of the other right wing candidates. Sure, maybe Trump would have sane policies in office... or maybe he'd be the worst of the lot. Electing a known lying fraud in the hopes that his actual policies will be less destructive than what he claims he would do would be incredibly reckless. Sanders is the only candidate actually pushing a liberal agenda which could provide significant environmental and economic benefits, but he has always been a long shot for the nomination and the window for an upset is closing fast.

24903. ryland at 19:42 PM on 24 March 2016
       How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
       

       Dr Death @8.  Not unsurprisingly despite your comment "I will look at scientific facts and the reasons for it and then I look at the debunking side of it as to why people believe that part is not true" none of those responding to your post have provided you with any sites where "debunking" occurs on a regular basis.  

       Some of those sites are Wattsupwiththat run by an American "meteorologist" but probably more accurately a TV and radio weather presenter; Jonova run by the Australian Joanne Nova who has an Honours degree majoring in Microbiology and Molecular Biology  from the University of Western Australia; ClimateAudit run by Steve McIntyre a Canadian with a Bachelor's degree im Mathematics from the University of Toronto and a degree in politics, philosophy and economics from the Unversity of Oxford; Climate Etc run by the American Dr. Judith Curry who is a climatologist with many peer reviewed publications in the field of climate science; Global Warming Policyh Foundation started by the Englishman Nigel Lawson (aka Lord Lawson) who was the Chancellor of the Exchequer in Mrs thatcher's government.  Others you might like to look up are the American Dr. Richard Lindzen an atmospheric physicist educated at Harvard, the American meteorologist Dr Roy Spencer and the American climate scientist Dr john Christy who, with Roy Spencer monitors the global climate using information from satellites

       All of those who I have mentioned are persona non grata at this site but as your stated aim is to examine the views from the "debunking side" it seems remiss not to point you in the direction of some, but by no means all, of those who frequently comment on the 'debunking side" of the climate debate

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Sloganeering and argumentative statements snipped. 

24904. shoyemore at 18:41 PM on 24 March 2016
       How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
       

       # 7 JWRebel

       " ... a psychopath like Hillary scares me .. "

       Not sure where that is coming from, but in a European perspective Hillary Clinton is seen as a safe pair of hands, not only on energy and climate, but also in regard to foreign policy. It was Clinton who re-booted the US' foreign relations with allies and enemies in 2008, after the disastrous Bush years.

       While the EU totters in the face of multifaceted crises (Brexit, the possible fragmentation of both the UK and Spain, a prolonged recession and currency crisis, the return of right-wing authoritarianism as a political force, a refugee crisis unparallel since 1945, a militaristic and expansionist Russia ..) the last person we want to see directing US policy is the vainglorious and volatile Trump.

24905. shoyemore at 18:32 PM on 24 March 2016
       How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
       

       #3, knaugle,

       ".. it matters not who is VP, never does"

       Just two words to disprove that contention: Dick Cheney

       Cheney had a malign influence on the policies of the last Bush administration, not least in regard to energy and climate.

24906. Glenn Tamblyn at 17:27 PM on 24 March 2016
       How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
       

       DrDeath
       
       In addition to others comments, the question I might pose to you is how much basic thermodynamics do you know? Because climate, at a basic level is about energy and energy flows.
       
       Google/Wikipedia topics like:

       Earth's Radiative Energy Balance. Follow the energy trail.

       Greenhouse Effect.

       Look into the differences between the energy needed to change the temperature of air vs water, how much is needed to melt ice, vapourise water etc. If you want to get more technical look into the Stefan-Bolzmann equation, Planck's Law, Atmospheric Lapse Rate. When you realise the Earth's surface temperature is 10's of degrees warmer than it should be given how far from the Sun we are and how reflective the Earth is a hell of a lot falls into place.

       Make sure you start with an understanding of the distinction between climate and weather.

       And a second to TD's cite of Spencer Weart's 'Discovery of Climate Warming'. Following what the scientists did will suggest topics you may not have considered.

       Also, with Tom's link to RealClimate, they have an excellent Sources page. You can use it to link to temperature datasets, ocean heat content observations, databases of CO2 readings and more. Even just to get a sense of how much data is out there.
       
       Then a general area to research is Paleoclimate. Not just ice-core records, that is recent as far as the Earth is concerned. There are insights to be gained when we look back 100's of millions of years, including just how bad climate has been in the past. And it provides a reality check when people suggest climate can't change in harmful ways. Oh yes it can, it has done so repeatedly.
       
       A general trap to be wary of. Many skeptics try to paint climate science as being about just CO2 then claim that it is more complex than that. A Strawman argument. Well doh, the scientists know all of that. They know climate is about many factors, which have differing impacts in different contexts. The position of the continents impacts climate significantly for example. But since movement of the continents occurs on time scales of millions of years, they aren't going to impact on climate change on human timescales. Context matters.

       If your researching claims, keep your antenna primed for logical fallacies. For example, 'Climate has always changed without humans here', with the implied subtext that therefore any current change isn't caused by us. Thats a non sequiter. The other key one is cherry-picking - using local, specific or truncated data to imply broad or global phenomena.

       Lots to study, really fun to discover actually, pity the subject is so serious.

       Plenty of folks here willing to answer questions or point you towards data.

24907. Tom Curtis at 16:29 PM on 24 March 2016
       How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
       

       DrDeath @8, I would start with the very basics first:

       1)  Humans are causing the current rise in CO2 level; and

       2)  There is an atmospheric greenhouse effect.

       Once you understand those two points, a lot of the dross churned out by Anthropogenic Global Warming Deniers can be quickly identified for the absurdity it is.  You will then be able to concentrate on the more serious arguments by the more sensible critics of the IPCC (and there are some from both sides, ie, critics who think the IPCC overestimates potential warming and/or potential harm; and critics who think the IPCC underestimates potential warming and/or potential harm).

       That in itself is an important point.  Most of the media, and a lot of blogs give the impression that there are two sides to the argument, the IPCC side, and the extreme downside critics of the IPCC.  In fact, the the IPCC occupies the central position relative to rational criticisms (and some not so rational from both sides).  If your reading does not make you aware of that, it is not broad enough.

       Finally, most blogosphere criticism of the IPCC, and a lot of media criticism of the IPCC does not even rise to the level of being rational.  It is flat earther stuff.  In a couple of cases less rational than flat earther arguments, but those are rare.  It depends essentially on made up 'data', extremely selective data, and outright misrepresentation of the IPCC position

       More generally, as you apparently have taught yourself a bit of maths, I highly recommend "The Science of Doom", even though I disagree with the author of that site on some points.  Better yet are good textbooks such as:

       Principles of Planetary Climate, by Raymond Pierrehumbert

       The Warming Papers, edited by David Archer and Raymond Pierrehumbert (which reviews the foundational papers of global warming)

       Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast, by David Archer

       The first and second of these have associated websites, which make them particularly useful.

       Also worthwhile getting, and the best popular book on the subject IMO, is Richard Alley's, Earth: The Operators Manual.

       Finally, while I concur with the advise given above, and think SkS the best place to ask basic questions, as your understanding improves you will get more milage by asking your questions at Science of Doom, Tamino's Open Mind for statistics questions, ... And Then There's Physics for general questions on the debate, and Real Climate for detailed science questions.  This is not a criticism of Skeptical Science, but a reflection of the focus of the site.  I should also note that some of the authors on Skeptical Science, particularly in particular areas (Kevin Cowtan on temperature records, Rob Painting on sea levels, Dikran Marsupial on statistics and the carbon cycle) have detailed and in depth knowledge of the subject and will give you answers as good as you will get anywhere else.  Unfortunately they are also busy and often are not able to respond.

24908. Tom Curtis at 12:54 PM on 24 March 2016
       Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
       

       billev @24 completely confirms the fact that he is not open to being persuaded by evidence, a fact even more evident if you can see his snipped comments on CO2.

       For those open to evidence, however, it is interesting to see what actual statistical analysis has to say about billev's central contention in this thread.  For that purpose, there is no better source than Werner et al (2015), "Study of structural break points in global and hemispheric temperature series by piecewise regression"

       Werner et al use several statistical tests.  First they test slightly obsolete versions of the three oldest temperature series (HadCRUT3, NCDC, and GISTEMP) with data from 1880-2012 by checking for break points within 10 years locations chosen by visual inspection:

       "At first the expected BP’s locations were chosen by eyes inspection and also from the literature (see Introduction).  For the global and NH temperatures BP’s locations were expected around 1910, 1940, 1970 and 2005, and for the SH near 1910 and 1960. The BP’s locations were determined searching in the intervals of ±10 years around the expected BP’s for a first overview."

       The datasets were 'slightly obsolete' in that they do not include the most recent improvements on adjustments for different methods of determining SST.

       They find that:

       "In our paper the locations of the structural changes for models with three BP’s are obtained in 1911, 1940 and 1965 for the HadCRUT3 set, in 1918, 1940 and 1972 for the GISS data and in 1911, 1940 and 1971 for the NCDC data."

       The locations of the breakpoints come with an uncertainty range, specified in their table 1.

       It is noteworthy that none of the breakpoints fall on the years specified by billev, although with current data sets some of them may have.  It is particularly noteworthy that no breakpoint was found in the 21st century, even though the algorithm was encouraged to find one.

       Not content with that, the authors then forced the algorithm to find a set number of breakpoints, with the number required ranging from 1 through to 8.  The results were published on figure 3:

       

       You will notice that no breakpoint is found in the 21st century until the algorithm is forced to include 7 breakpoints, at which point one is found in 2005 (not 2002).  That breakpoint vanishes, however, with 8 points, in favour of breakpoints in 1996 and 1998.  A 1975 breakpoint occurs at n=1, 3, and 4, but it switches to a 1978 breakpoint at n=2, and to a 1965 breakpoint for n>4.

       The relative merit of the different breakpoint patterns is shown in figure 4:

       

       The highest LWZ score (a bayesian version of the Akaike Information Criterion) is found for three breakpoints, but it is not greatly preferable to n=2 (or 4, 5, or 6 come to that).  As it happens, the recent improved adjustment to SST has exacerbated the slope from the mid-1930s to 1945 in both GISTEMP and NCDC, and would consequently decrease the difference between 2 and 3 breakpoints, and may possibly even make 2 break points preferrable.  Likewise, it may favour a 5 break point analysis with breakpoints at (approximately) 1906, 1935, 1945, 1955, and 1978, as should be apparent from the first graph @14 above.  (Certainly it would be hard to justify a 1950-55 breakpoint while excluding a 1935 breakpoint on that data.)

       In any event, objective analysis may favour three breakpoints (something that is arguable with the improved data), with a 1945 breakpoint brought about primarilly by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), but it certainly precludes a breakpoint in the early twenty first century.  Further, if the 1945 AMO break point should be included, that allows no projections into the future given that the period and amplitude of the AMO has been highly variable over the last few centuries, with the cycle from 1910-1970 representing atypical values for both cycle length and amplitude (see panel b of figure below, and discussion in the paper).  That variability in the cycle means no expectation about future changes can be reliabily projected.  

       

24909. Tristan at 11:38 AM on 24 March 2016
       How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
       

       Adding to the mod's response - I recommend the online course: https://www.edx.org/course/making-sense-climate-science-denial-uqx-denial101x-0 which a number of the folk on this site were involved with creating.

       Moderator Response:

       [TD] Whoops! I intended to suggest that course; thanks!

24910. DrDeath at 10:39 AM on 24 March 2016
       How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
       

       Hello,

       I have decided to look more closely into this whole Climate Change/Global Warming issue.  I was wondering where a good place for lots of information would be.  Like in a condensed type version listing many different facts and then where I can go back and look at some things in greater detail.  I hope that makes sense.

        

       I will admit, I am a skeptic on most things, however, when I start researching something, I usually do it with an open mind and often don't have a real opinion on it until quite some time of research.  Of course, some subjects just take naturally longer to digest if you are not familiar with the terms used, the science involved and things like that.  My knowledge of Climate and weather are probably no more than the average person.  I know when the sun is out I am happy and when it is cloudy I get crabby lol.

        

       As an example, I studied different aspects of 911 to see if it actually happened the way it did or if it was done on purpose.  That took me 3 years before I made my final determination.  I know, but I had to teach myself about Architecture, Engineering, lots of mathematical formulas, tons of reading, videos etc.  There is really a lot out there to go thru on both sides of the argument.  I still to this day check out anything new that somebody comes up with.

        

       So that kind of shows you how I research.  Yes, it's a bit anal, but I like to go thru everything before I make a determination on something.  The best way to do that for me is to learn as much as I can about all aspects of it.  I will look at scientific facts and the reasons for it and then I look at the debunking side of it as to why people believe that part is not true.  Of course, there is always the "conspiracy theory" part that I need to research on things too.  I find a lot of that is based on people's creative imaginations.  But you can never rule all of it that way as some people do have good evidence to back up their theories, not many do, but a few do.

        

       So anyways, if you guys and gals could point me in a good direction for a newbie learner to start, I would very much appreciate it.

       Thank you,

       Tom

       Moderator Response:

       [TD] Welcome to Skeptical Science! Given that you are a thorough and systematic researcher, I suggest you:

       1. Read the "Newcomers Start Here" post you can get to by clicking that big button at the top of the home page. Click some of the links in the resulting page, but don't linger in any of those destinations yet; just glance at them so you know what resources are there.
       2. Now click the "The History of Global Warming" big button that is to the right of the "Newcomers" button at the top of the home page. Read the whole resulting page without clicking any links yet, because you should get the overview first. Pay special attention to the timeline, in the sense that some projections/predictions were made years, decades, and even more than a century before observations could be made, and those observations confirmed the projections/predictions. At the bottom there is a link to Spencer Weart's "Discovery of Global Warming" online free book, but I suggest you not click that yet.
       3. Now click the "The Big Picture" button that is the rightmost of the three big buttons at the top of the home page. Read the resulting page, but again do not click any of those links yet, so you don't interrupt your getting of the Big Picture.
       4. Given your self-described learning style, you might next want to go ahead to the detailed history in Spencer Weart's "Discovery of Global Warming." Your own learning journey might well recapitulate some of the scientific community's learning journey over the past 200 years, so you might discover that as your reading raises questions in your mind, your reading of the next bit of the history will answer those questions.
       5. Now come back to the "Newcomers Start Here" and click links within it. Ditto The Big Picture.
       6. Then ask questions and make comments here on Skeptical Science!!!! But please do so on an appropriate thread. To find an appropriate thread, use the list of myths/arguments (click the links in the left margin) and/or use the Search field at the top left of every page. Many regular readers monitor the Comments page that shows all comments on all threads, so if you pick the wrong thread somebody will point you to a better one. If you truly have no idea which thread is appropriate, comment on one of the weekly Digest or Roundup pages.
24911. JWRebel at 09:16 AM on 24 March 2016
       How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
       

       Penguin

       The most clear and present danger is actually climate change. If we were even a little bit serious the US and the EU would each be spending 400-500€Billion a year on mitigation, research, etc. Military budgets should be repurposed and added to that: the earth is a more all or nothing proposition than any (military) necessity ever has been.

       That said, few people realize how likely it is to push Russia (or Nato) into using tactical nuclear and things getting out of hand. Current generation of politicians are not adults trying to de-escalate, but are juveniles pushing the neo-con insanity, after having abolished the hotlines and many of the political safe-guards. That's why a psychopath like Hillary scares me even more than a blow-hard narcissist like Trump. Don't forget that it was Nixon and Reagan that ultimately made overtures to the East and brought about detente.

       Sanders' foreign policy statements are not reassuring, but I would be far more inclined to vote Sanders than anything else, if he were the nominee. Like you, however, I have to entrust this one to the American public. Whaaaa!

24912. mancan18 at 09:04 AM on 24 March 2016
       Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
       

       billev

       Temperature measurements are not the only indicator of global warming. You seem to ignore the other indicators of warming and together they indicate that there is a problem. Some fo these other indicators have also been presented with proper scientific detail in this article. I will try to make it simpler, although I fear it is a lost cause.

       Globally, over the last century, there has been a reduction in the amount of ice worldwide. You don't even need to trawl vast amounts of data to understand. If you don't believe the data collected by glaciologists and polar scientists, then there are plenty of now and then photos of glaciers that indicate that ice is retreating. Also, there are plenty of satellite photos over the last thirty years that also indicate that polar ice is also retreating. Although, I am not a climate scientist responsible for collecting and analysing primary data, as a mathematician, I can understand it. But I don't need to, the photographic evidence of ice retreat is pretty compelling that the planet is warming.

       Now with regard to the 20 cm sea level rise over the last few centuries, you don't need to trawl through and analyse copious amounts of data to understand that either. It can be fairly easily verified from the historical high tide marks at various places around the world. For instance, at Port Arthur in Tasmania, which was a prison for highly recalcitrant convicts during Australia's convict era during the late 18th and early 19th century, current high tides at Port Arthur are about 20 cm higher than the high tide marks of 200 years ago. The same is true in many other places around Australia. This article indicates that this has happened at several places in the US and any investigation of other historical ports around the world would also indicate the same thing. Now you may be able to obscure the temperature analyses by cherry picking baselines and ignoring basic statistical methodology but you cannot ignore the physical evidence of ice retreat and sea level rise that also indicate that warming has occurred over the last few hundred years.

       As for CO2 being the driver, well considering that there has been no evidence to indicate a significant increase in the Sun's radiant output in recent times, then the only other reason for warming would be a significant increase in greenhouse gases, even though they are only a small part of the Earth's atmosphere. Not sure how you would explain why the sudden significant increase of greenhouse gases levels over the last 200 years (over 400 ppm) from the typical level of the last million years (280 ppm) has occurred. Now there has been no sudden increase in vulcanism worldwide that would explain it, so it must come from another source, i.e. burning fossil fuels perhaps? We actually know this from studying ice-cores that have preserved the last 800,000 years of the Earth's atmosphere. Now all this is pretty simple, and you don't need to be a climate scientist to undertstand it. So trying to prove that global warming isn't happeneing by selectively sniping at temperature records over several years really doesn't really cut it as valid argument.

24913. Digby Scorgie at 09:03 AM on 24 March 2016
       How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
       

       #1 JWRebel

       "US support for ISIS"?  Is this a typo?

24914. dagold at 07:06 AM on 24 March 2016
       Current record-shattering temperatures are shocking even to climate scientists
       

       Hey all: I just had this article publsished - "Condemning Our Grandchildren to a Real-life Video Game" - that seeks to place the recent global temp data intoa context that is a bit more "entertaining" than the typical climate article:  commons.commondreams.org/t/condemning-our-grandchildren-to-a-real-life-video-game/20110

24915. shoyemore at 06:24 AM on 24 March 2016
       How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
       

       #3, knaugle,

       Abraham Lincoln: "I would agree to any evil to prevent a worse one".

       Between Trump and Clinton: Clinton

       Between Trump and Cruz: Trump

24916. penguin at 05:53 AM on 24 March 2016
       How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
       

       JWRebel

       While I see some merit in your vote, I would say it's an uncertain and dangerous wild card sort of play your betting on. Yes, Trump is a buffoon that's flip-flopping all over the place saying whatever gives him the most votes. Hoping that he turns out to be a rational candidate if he's elected, which is hard to foresee considering his shenanigans in public, is a dangerous way to go in my opinion.

       
       Please note that I share your concern for the ultimate doom, i.e nuclear war. If I were an American citizen I would vote for Sanders, even though he said he would continue to politically and economically isolate Russia. Him voting against US policy in the Middle East tells me that he is rational enough to not to escalate things to a confrontation with Russia.
       Unfortunately, Sanders doesn't really stand a chance in a system of bought elections.

24917. knaugle at 04:55 AM on 24 March 2016
       How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
       

       So far as #2, it matters not who is VP, never does. 

       It is pretty easy to do a search on Trump as a carnival barker and find such comparisons going all the way back to the birther controversy, but that dangerously minimizes him.  Trump is a man who when it comes to reading his crowd is head and shoulders above the other candidates.  He also plays the media with the skill of a virtuoso.  This is not just about climate change however.  Donald Trump won the PolitiFact 2015 lie of the year for a good reason.

       www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/21/2015-lie-year-donald-trump-campaign-misstatements/

       A candidate who tells you only what you want to hear, but never what you need to know is among the most dangerous of political animals.  Whether a President Trump would be as I think remains to be seen.  His body of work has left me deeply distrustful of most everything he says. 

24918. shoyemore at 03:11 AM on 24 March 2016
       How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
       

       I tend to agree with JWRebel in some respects.

       Donald Trump would in all probability be a much better President in regard to climate change and renewable energy than Ted Cruz, who has already shown how far he is willing to go in order to further the Big Oil agenda.

       While frevently hoping that neither ever become President, I feel that Trump would be more amenable to being persuaded on climate change, and by light years more amenable to "the art of the deal" (his words) on renewable energy and the environment. At least, Trump is not financially beholden to anyone. 

       A Trump administration, with maybe Kasich as VP, might surprise us. It bloody well better, if it ever happens.

24919. KR at 03:00 AM on 24 March 2016
       Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
       

       billev - "...there appears to be a discernable pattern in the temperature change in the form of similar length alternating periods of continuous warming and pauses in warming. I then have concluded that if this pattern were to continue..."

       You see a cyclic pattern, those who actually investigate the physics see that the various forcings have changed over the last 1.5 centuries, with temperatures following those forcings with some weather variability. See CO2 is not the only driver of climate, as you were referred to some time ago, and read it. Actual physics rule climate, billev, not numerology. 

        "I believe that the continuous warming period that began around 1974 actually continued until about 2002 and this can be more easily seen if the temperature sapike of 1998 is ignored."

       Statistical analysis of the trends, not to mention changepoint analysis, show that you utterly wrong on this point. There is _no_ statistically significant change in trend around 2002. And making claims from such a short period simply demonstrates that you aren't using any statistical analysis whatsoever. 

       " I am also suspicious of the motivation of government climate scientists... This appears to me to be an attempt to mislead not inform."

       And... now the conspiracy theories. Sorry, billev, but I consider you a hopeless case of climate science denial. 

24920. JWRebel at 02:41 AM on 24 March 2016
       How to inoculate people against Donald Trump's fact bending claims
       

       While not in disagreement with what you say, I would vote for Trump simply on the basis of my worst fears, which are about US foreign policy. The whole field of Republican candidates has been a competition about who is the greatest war monger. Trump is the only one who thinks he can get along with Putin, pull out of entanglements such as US support for ISIS, and make deals with other countries. That sounds a lot better to me than pushing Russia into nuclear war [don't forget NATO is conducting exercises on the Russian border, 100 km from St. Petersburg, and expanding its missiles and pre-emptive strike doctrine]. I see Trump as the most conciliatory and least violent in this regard.

       The democratic party also went full-bore on homeland security, Iraq, drone killings, etc. Hillary terrifies me in this regard, willing to sacrifice any number of people to meet her targets.

       Once in office, Trump will want to succeed. He will listen to advisers, and quicly learn about the real world. If he can get over his ideological instincts, he may even learn that climate change is not just a leftist thing and that solar is a good business proposition — his comments up till now seem not to go much further than people who exclaim: "Where's that global warming when you need it!" as they wait for a bus in the cold wind.

24921. billev at 02:06 AM on 24 March 2016
       Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
       

       I did not introduce CO2 into this discussion so I would like to return to my original point.  first, though, I would like to say that providing the tonnage of CO2 in the atmosphere might make that presence seem large and significant but not when you cmpare that figure to the tonnage of the atmosphere.  Then the small presence of CO2 becomes clear.  My original idea was to state that the global temperature history, as presented in the NOAA graphs, appears to show that there has not been continuous global warming since 1880.  Also that there appears to be a discernable pattern in the temperature change in the form of similar length alternating periods of continuous warming and pauses in warming.  I then have concluded that if this pattern were to continue then tentative predictions of future temperature change could be made.  My point about ignoring temperature spikes and drops associated with short term events considered the fact that including these events in temperature assessments could cause confusion.  For example, there were those that argued that there had been no rise in temperature since 1998, an El Nino year that appeared as a temperature spike on the graph.  However, I believe that the continuous warming period that began around 1974 actually continued until about 2002 and this can be more easily seen if the temperature sapike of 1998 is ignored.  I further think that a propensity to try to mask the pause periods by drawing trend lines from various years to various years in an attempt to indicate that global warming is continuous is harmful to climate science.  I am also suspicious of the motivation of government climate scientists who publicly focus on the temperature of individual years or small groups of years, particularly when the temperatures for these years are those influenced by a short term climate event like El Nino. This appears to me to be an attempt to mislead not inform.   

       Moderator Response:

       [TD] Your comments here about the amount of CO2 being too small are out of place. You need to put those comments on the CO2 Is a Trace Gas thread.

       Your other comments seem to be mere repetition of your earlier assertions, without any indication of you having read any of the comments responding to you, nor you having read the other posts you were pointed to. The Skeptical Science comments are for discussion. If you continue to fail to actually discuss, your comments will be deleted for violating the commenting policy's prohibition of "sloganeering."

24922. One Planet Only Forever at 00:46 AM on 24 March 2016
       Current record-shattering temperatures are shocking even to climate scientists
       

       bozzza @11,

       I am not sure of your life learning, but I am an Engineer with an MBA who has been living in Alberta and observing the political and business activity in and from that region for decades.

       The following is another way of presenting my comment @12:

       It would be far easier to find and present a case studies showing that the free actions of players in the marketplace (and their ability to get political leadership to allow and support less acceptable pursuits of benefit and reward) have been barriers to the advancement of humanity (advancing humanity to a lasting better future for all as sustainable parts of the robust diversity of life on this amazing planet), than it would be to present a case study that supports the theory that the free action of players in the marketplace (of popularity and profitability) has developed a lasting advancement of humanity.

       However, it would be possible to develop a case study in support of the theory that the free action of players in the marketplace (of popularity and profitability) has developed a lasting advancement of humanity. And the following would need to be done to develop and most effectively present that case study:

       - Try to redefine the measure of success to be some less relevant “Measure of growth of something that seems like improvement, even if it could be fundamentally unsustainable or would mask inequity like 'Total Wealth or GDP'.
       - Seek out an example to present as the case proving the point. It would still be challenging to find a good case to support the claim that the free actions of people resulted in achieving the less relevant definition of advancement (in many cases government regulation and enforcement contrary to the desires of players in the marketplace actually led to the result). It would be very difficult to find a case that could prove such actions resulted in a truly lasting advancement of humanity.
       - The chosen case study would require some message massaging to create the appearance that it was truly a lasting advancement of humanity and had been the result of players in the marketplace being free to do as they please. And to improve the 'selling success' of the message it would probably include some points to trigger a temptation for self-interest such as greed and try to discredit anyone who would present a contradicting claim.
       - A person whose credentials appear to indicate they would be an expert in the field would need to be selected to 'pitch' the case study to reduce the number of people who would question and further investigate the validity of claim.
       - And all of the above wold need to be done while deliberately ignoring or excusing all the other information encountered that contradicts the case that is attempting to be made.

       That sequence of actions should be familiar. They are very similar to the actions required to most successfully argue against the developing better understanding of climate science and the resulting need for already more fortunate people to be stopped from “freely choosing to fight to get away with getting more reward and benefit from the burning of fossil fuels”.

24923. Hans Petter Jacobsen at 22:44 PM on 23 March 2016
       Tracking the 2°C Limit - February 2016
       

       The carbon budgets was the main issue in my @25. The budget for 1.5 °C warming may soon be exhausted, perhaps when we still focus on the ups and downs in the temps. And the budget for 2 °C warming may be exhausted before the temperature has risen 1.5 °C. CDIAC publishes data for the carbon emissions on a yearly basis, and the data for 2014 was published some months ago. These data has up till 2014 been very stable and predictable, maybe due to the inertia in our economic system, infrastructure etc. It may be difficult to make a newsworthy plot every month showing the carbon emissions and the carbon budgets. But maybe the issue of carbon budgets should be mentioned when we show how the temps approach the 1.5 and 2 °C limits ?

       Rob @26, in your December 2015 update you show a plot with the full ONI (Ocean Nino Index) data going back to 1950. The plot shows the La Ninas following the El Ninos in 1998 and 2010. During these La Ninas the global surface temperature fell below the long term trend line, as shown in the plot below. The plot is similar to the main plot in your February 2016 update, but it is zoomed in to see the details after 1997.

       

       I think we should expect something similar for the next La Nina. Then the contrarians will probably focus on the decline in the monthly temperatures and in the 12 months running average, and we will get a new version of the 'No warming in the last nn years' myth. We somehow legitimize their future wrongdoing by now focusing too much on the warm temps in the current El Nino.

       In my opinion the field 'Current 12 m avg' in the upper left part of your plot could be replaced with 'Trend line current month'. That would focus on the long term trend, and it would make future versions of your plot more informative when the temps drop below the trend line, which they hopefully will do for 50 % of the future months. The current value of the long term trend line will vary slowly, but the 12 months running average and the red circle around the temp in the last month will retain the newsworthiness of the plot. (I know that others disagree with me, partly because 'Trend line current month' would require more explanation and would be more difficult to understand. It means the value of the 30 year linear trend line at the current month.)

24924. One Planet Only Forever at 15:19 PM on 23 March 2016
       Current record-shattering temperatures are shocking even to climate scientists
       

       bozzza@11,

       There is ample evidence supporting my explanation of what is going on in marketplaces. Your claim and faith in the marketplace appears to only be a preferred belief, lacking actual proof.

       In most cases a potentailly beneficial development that people attempt to claim is due to market action, is actually the result of government intervention which regrettably usually only happens when the damaging failure of the marketplace to actually advance humanity has become too massive to excuse or ignore.

24925. bozzza at 12:24 PM on 23 March 2016
       Current record-shattering temperatures are shocking even to climate scientists
       

       @ 8,

        

       Markets are meant to be robust. All markets are governed and a coral bleaching event of sustained significance will change the intervened free-hand one way or the other.

       Richie Rich provides what is needed: his enterprise is rewarded but always collared!

       The stock market may look anarchic but like any gambling event there are players in charge!

24926. denisaf at 11:27 AM on 23 March 2016
       Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
       

       This discussion about irreversible rapid climate change and ocean acidification and warming is misleading because it conveys the impression that it is the result of human activity. The reality is that it is the result of the operation of the technical systems of industrialized civilization. These systems are irreversibly using up the  limited natural material resources and are irrevocably aging. Climate change is a serious consequence of that process but it is not the only one that society will have to try to deal with as the natural resources run out.

24927. Tom Curtis at 08:42 AM on 23 March 2016
       Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
       

       billev @20 ignores the substance of the article to which he was referred, concentrating instead on a single paragraph which mentions what we know rather than presenting evidence for it.  Again, this is an attempt by him to protect his beliefs from evidence.  His specific claim was that:

       "I have a difficult time believing that carbon dioxide at one part in 2500 parts of atmosphere has any role that influences the global temperature. There is just not enough there there."

       The argument that "x exist only in trace amounts, therefore x has no influence" that he relies on is rebutted by numerous counter-examples in the "CO2 is a trace gas" article.  Those counter-examples show that his conclusion does not follow from his premises, and that his argument simply amounts to an argument from personal incredulity.  The use of such an argument, and his response to its clear rebutal shows yet again that he is not open to changing his mind.

       For the open minded, the fact that CO2 influences the Earth's climate is sufficiently well established that doubting it is the intellectual equivalent of considering the Earth to be flat.  That is because it is known for a fact that CO2 alters the rate at which energy can escape to space across certain frequencies.  Because of that, and because the energy escaping to space must equal the energy ariving from space for equilibrium, that means either that the Earth must be warmer to increase the energy escaping in other frequencies, or that the Earth's albedo must increase to reduce incoming energy to match the reduced outgoing energy.  As it happens, the former is the easier to achieve, and what in fact happens.

       As noted, the reduction in outgoing energy is a fact, observed in downward looking IR observations such as this one, observed over Texas in 1969:

       

       billev's argument from personal incredulity amounts to the claim that the large, CO2 induced reduction in outgoing emissions around a wavelength of 15 microns does not exist because 'there is just not enough there there'.  Or perhaps he believes that conservation of energy only applies to effects caused by compounds that exist in greater than trace amounts.

       As a side note, I recently calculated the mass of the CO2 in the atmosphere.  Currently it is approximately 848 billion tonnes, having increased by 254 billion tonnes since the preindustrial due to human activity.  Thus I can rephrase billev's argument.  It is that 848 billion tonnes of a compound obviously cannot influence the climate because 'there is just not enough there there'.  LMAO

24928. barry1487 at 07:21 AM on 23 March 2016
       Current record-shattering temperatures are shocking even to climate scientists
       

       Tamino has a take on this. Surprising, but not shocking.

       tamino.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/surprise-but-not-shock/

24929. MA Rodger at 06:50 AM on 23 March 2016
       Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
       

       billev @20.

       When you tell us "I have read the referenced CO2 paper and am not impressed," are you referring to the SkS 'CO2 is just a trace gas' item? If so, do be aware that it's not really a "paper" and its purpose is not to set out the relationship between CO2 and warming. Rather its purpose is to demonstrate that a small proportion of something like a 'trace gas' can have a big impact. You were referred to this particular SkS item specifically because you proclaimed @11 "I have a difficult time believing that carbon dioxide at one part in 2500 parts of atmosphere has any role that influences the global temperature. There is just not enough there there." So so, if it was the 'trace gas' item you read, are you now happier with the idea that trace elements can be powerful?

24930. billev at 05:20 AM on 23 March 2016
       Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
       

       I have read the referenced CO2 paper and am not impressed.  To maintain that CO2 levels have increased while global temperatures have increased thus the rise in CO2 has caused the rise in global temperature is a weak argument.  It dismisses all other possibile causes for the global warming without so much as a discussion and it does not address the fact that while CO2 has steadily increased there has not been continuous warming.  It also does not contain any references to testing to see how much radiated heat the current level of CO2 in the atmosphere is, in fact, retaining.  

       Moderator Response:

       [TD] The greenhouse gas effect of CO2 is based on fundamental physics knowledge. Read "How Do We Know More CO2 Is Causing Warming?" Read the Basic tabbed pane, then the Intermediate one, then the Advanced one. Don't just skim. If you have questions about that post, ask them there, not here.

       CO2's effect on global temperature was projected many decades before it was even technically possible to measure the global temperature, and then was confirmed by observations. So the correlation came after the projection. You really need to get a grounding in the foundations. I suggest you read physicist and science historian Spencer Weart's Discovery of Global Warming, which is available online for free.

       Regarding other influences on temperature, see CO2 Is Not the Only Driver of Climate. Read the Basic and the Intermediate tabbed panes.

24931. John Hartz at 02:48 AM on 23 March 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Digest #12
       

       chriskoz & knaugle:

       I also have mixed feelings about the primary message of the Toon.  The fact that climate science deniers abhor being labeled a "denier" suggest to me that the cartoonist meant it be a put down of climate science deniers.

       Thanks for paying attention and providing feedback. 

24932. John Hartz at 02:07 AM on 23 March 2016
       Current record-shattering temperatures are shocking even to climate scientists
       

       Recommended supplemental reading:

       The Next Great Global Warming ‘Hiatus’ Is Coming! by Ethan Siegel, Starts with a Bang, Forbes, Mar 16, 2016

24933. One Planet Only Forever at 00:35 AM on 23 March 2016
       Current record-shattering temperatures are shocking even to climate scientists
       

       bozzza@5,

       I am skeptical of the marketplace 'reacting to any developing better understanding of what is required to advance all of humanity to a lasting better future'.

       The way the 'marketplace' has reacted to the better understanding of the unacceptability of already fortunate people continuing to get benefit from the burning of fossil fuels is clear proof that the 'current popular and profitable for some' marketplace driven by popularity and profitability is in many cases a destructive barrier to the advancement of humanity.

       The biggest problem is clearly the way that misleading marketing can promote less acceptable action plans that are 'temporarily' more profitable and rewarding for a portion of the entirety of humanity (the entirety includes future humans) for as long as they can be gotten away with.

       Less acceptable is almost always quicker and cheaper (or less acceptable choices like pursuing violent actions like invasion or promoting rebellion in other regions being potentially more successful actions). Therefore, the most profitable and popular activity 'winning in the marketplace' is likely to be the least acceptable activity that can be gotten away with. And misleading marketing is a proven significant factor in prolonging and even expanding activity that can be understood to not be advancing humanity to a lasting better future for all on this or any other amazing planet (political misleading marketing clearly being potentially more damaging than commercial misleading marketing, but commercial misleading marketing paired with misleading political marketing being clearly being the greatest weapon of mass destruction ever created).

       Humanity's only real future is through figuring out how all of humanity can live decently as sustainable parts of the robust diversity of life. Humans trying to thrive or survive solely through technological advancement succeeding in the marketplace of popularity and profitability clearly have no future.

       Faith in the 'marketplace' advancing humanity to a sustainable better future is obviously misplaced, especially when misleading marketing promoting self-interest can succeed in drumming up popular support against the advancement of humanity.

       The global warming case is only one of many clear cases of the obvious fatal failings of the 'fabled invisible-handed marketplace drive by self-interested and likely misleading pursuers of what they want to get away with' that is promoted as something that must be revered, something that can never be questioned no matter how much evidence there is proving that believing in it is foolish.

24934. scttharding5 at 00:04 AM on 23 March 2016
       Current record-shattering temperatures are shocking even to climate scientists
       

       I think that the current surface temperature spike that has been caused by AGW and a strong El Nino is an opportunity for the scientific community to convince many people here in the U.S. that climate change is a real threat. However, caution is required due to the probability that surface temps over the next few years will be somewhat lower than 2015-2016. Scientists and activists should use this time of heightened interest and awareness to explain to the general public the importance of ocean warming and overall heat content.

24935. knaugle at 22:36 PM on 22 March 2016
       2016 SkS Weekly Digest #12
       

       #1Then again, the cartoon satirizes climate deniers who no matter what happens will always say something like "Well, I expected that, no big deal"

24936. CBDunkerson at 21:59 PM on 22 March 2016
       Current record-shattering temperatures are shocking even to climate scientists
       

       dagold, the problem is that we have a much clearer picture of the, for example, 1951-1980 baseline, than we do of the 'pre-industrial' value... especially given that 'pre-industrial' itself is an inexact term.

       Given that 'pre-industrial' in this case really means 'before atmospheric CO2 levels started climbing rapidly' I'd think that would be the place to start. Between 1800 and 1850 atmospheric CO2 went from ~280 ppm to ~288 ppm. That's actually a fairly rapid increase rate in comparison to past events, but nothing compared to the rate since 1850. Thus, that time period or a little earlier would seem to be the proper baseline. Unfortunately, our instrumental temperature record prior to 1850 is extremeley limited. That time also happens to coincide with the 'little ice age', when there was some degree of cooling (particularly in NW Europe where most of the few temperature records we do have were taken) likely due to low solar output and/or vulcanism. Hence the difficulty of getting a clear 'pre-industrial baseline'.

       Still, I agree. The various climate summits should long ago have settled on some reasonable standard estimate for the 'pre-industrial' temperature. Without that, the 'limits' they seek to avoid cannot even be computed... by a few outlier accountings, 1.5 C had already come and gone before the Paris pledge to try to avoid it.

24937. barry1487 at 20:23 PM on 22 March 2016
       Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
       

       I read his first few yesterday and responded to them yesterday. Don't have a photographic memory, unfortunately.

24938. Tom Curtis at 19:12 PM on 22 March 2016
       Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
       

       barry @16, as you have now read his billev's first comment, and will get to his second and third comments shortly, no doubt, you will be aware that billev is not in fact open to persuasion.

24939. barry1487 at 18:38 PM on 22 March 2016
       Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
       

       Ah, billev, I re-read your first comment.

       There were pauses in temperature rise from about 1880 until about 1910 and from about 1945 until about 1974 and now since about 2002

       The mean trend estimate since 2002 is positive (but see below). You can check for yourself at this easy-to-use app on the web. Just type 2002 in the start year box, select whichever data set and hit 'calculate'.

       www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

        

       The uncertainty is larger than the trend, but that doesn't mean there isn't one. It does mean that the time-period is too short to confidently claim a pause, cooling, warming or whatever. Way too short. You need longer time periods for this data. 30 years is a good minimum standard.

24940. barry1487 at 18:27 PM on 22 March 2016
       Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
       

       he is too arrogant to consider the possibility that it might be he who is mistaken.

       Not necessarily. He declared his lack of expertise. His statements seem confident, but that doesn't mean he's close-minded. Let's reserve judgement.

24941. barry1487 at 18:24 PM on 22 March 2016
       Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
       

       billev,

       I think that use of the period 1974 to 2002 compared to the period 1911 to 1945 would be a more appropriate comparison rather than 1975 to 2015.

       Why? The more data, the less uncertainty. What's so important about 2002? Do you think it marks a transition point or something?

24942. Tom Curtis at 16:05 PM on 22 March 2016
       Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
       

       billev @11 states that:

       "I also think that years that feature unusually large temperature spikes either up or down associated with short term climate events should be ignored."

       It is very obvious, however, that he does not practise it.  For example, if we determine the GISSTEMP trend from 1910-1974, and take the residuals to that slope over the entire record, there is an obvious "unusually large temperature spikes ... associated with short term climate events":

       

       The spike spans only a single decade(1936-1946) so is obviously short term.  Its cause is likely primarilly an artifact of the large change in SST measurement methods coupled with larger changes in typical ocean routes (and hence areas of the ocean SST frequenlty measured), but the large 1939-1942 El Nino was no doubt also a major contributor.  (A greater than expected forcing from black carbon cannot be excluded either).  Although I used GISSTEMP, the spike is also evident in the NOAA record which billev prefers.

       Of course, had the spike been excluded, as billev claims should be done with such spikes, his temperature record would be a slight downward trend from 1880-1910, reversed by a slight upward trend from 1910-1970, and a strong upward trend thereafter.

       Why 1970 and not 1974?  Well, 1974 was the start of a very strong La Nina of record breaking length, and hence of a large downward temperature spike such as he says should be ignored.  Rather than ignoring it, however, as with 1945, he turns it into a breakpoint. 

       

       Even worse is his insistence on a breakpoint in 2002.  As it happens, a 1974-2002 trend is less than the 1974-2003 trend, less than the 1974-2005 trend, less than the 1974-2006 trend, and even less than the 1974-2007 trend.  Only for years after 2007 is the trend from 1974 less than that from 1974-2002.  Why then is 2002 chosen in preference to 2007 and the breakpoint?  As it happens, 2008 was a strong La Nina year (along with having the lowest solar activity since 1910).  And 2012 had the second strongest La Nina year since 1876 when the SOI records begin.  If he truly excluded "unusually large temperature spikes", billev would have needed to exclude 2008, 2012 and 2013 from the data - something using a 2007 breakpoint makes altogether to obvious.  So instead he shifts the breakpoint back to 2002, but must still retain the years he claims should be excluded in order to get his "pause".  

       Without those three strong La Nina years, there is no pause in the 21st century.  Indeed, even including them and the (so far) tied eigth strongest El Nino on record results in no pause, with the cherry picked 2002-2015 trend being nearly the same as the cherry picked 1910-1945 trend.  Indeed, that was the point of billev's comment.  He needs to exclude 2015 to maintain a case, so he drops in a throw away rational to do so, while not noticing how damaging it is to his case.

        billev states "I am neither a scientist or a statistician", and as can be seen above, nor does he have more than a superficial knowledge of the data.  And on this foundation of expertise, he disputes the conclusions of people who are scientists and statisticians, and how know the data like the back of their own hands.  Despite that, he is too arrogant to consider the possibility that it might be he who is mistaken.

24943. ubrew12 at 14:35 PM on 22 March 2016
       Tracking the 2°C Limit - February 2016
       

       Hank@23 said: "I started engineering long before computers when everything was done with hand calculations"  Sorry, I had no idea!  I assumed I was talking with a modern stamp-product of the STEM system.  

       I'm a lowly thermal engineer.  However, primarily in spacecraft (of which Earth is such) and so the entire 'controversy' over a CO2-induced radiative imbalance over our spacecrafts heat-rejection capability quite frankly has been 'cramping my 88*ss' for 20 years now. It's time to let Physics tell its story, and believe the story its telling.

24944. bozzza at 12:43 PM on 22 March 2016
       Current record-shattering temperatures are shocking even to climate scientists
       

       Coral Bleaching takes only a few months to be a harbinger of bad!

       Market forces will react if necessary!!

24945. dagold at 09:51 AM on 22 March 2016
       Current record-shattering temperatures are shocking even to climate scientists
       

       Knaugle - still, you raise an excellent point, imo. The various baselines (1951-1980, 1981-2010, etc.) do a great disservice to getting the idea of 'total warming' across. The total warming, including all the intentions set in Paris, are keying of a pre-industrial baseline which is, of course, lower than ANY of the later ones. I'm sure, to the average person, a reportage of, say, 1.35C above 1951-1980 appears as a "total warming" of 1.35C. But, as this article points out, it is much worse than that. Frustrating.

24946. Mal Adapted at 09:46 AM on 22 March 2016
       Lots of global warming since 1998
       

       From a guest post on RealClimate a while back, by Stephan Lewandowsky, James Risbey and Naomi Oreskes, Hiatus or Bye-atus?:

       To date, research on the “pause” has addressed at least 4 distinct questions:

       1. Is there a “pause” or “hiatus” in warming?
       2. Has warming slowed compared to the long-term warming trend?
       3. Has warming lagged behind model-derived expectations?
       4. What physical mechanisms underlie the “hiatus”?

       Those questions are not only conceptually distinct, they also involve different aspects of the data and entail different statistical hypotheses.

       Answering the first question requires careful construction of the null hypothesis being examined, leading directly to the second question.  That was addressed in another RC post, by Stefan Rahmstorf: Recent global warming trends: significant or paused or what?  Using the appropriate statistical technique of "change point analysis", Stefan showed there was no statistically significant divergence from the long-term warming trend based on GISTEMP data, and tamino showed no statistically significant divergence in any the commonly-used datasets .

       The answer to the third question, by working climate scientists as well as AGW-deniers, is usually 'yes', leading naturally to the fourth question.  The best peer-reviewed response, IMHO, is the 2014 Nature Geoscience Commentary by Schmidt et al., Reconciling warming trends, discussing how the CMIP family of models can better resolve short-term “noise” to forcing by greenhouse gasses, solar irradiance, ocean circulation, and anthropogenic and volcanogenic aerosols. This is science working as expected.

24947. Rob Honeycutt at 07:10 AM on 22 March 2016
       Tracking the 2°C Limit - February 2016
       

       Hans... I'm not really so sure La Nina is going to come save us. The ONI figures dropped back down to -1.6 after the 1997/98 El Nino, but if you look at the 2nd or 4th figures in this post, temps only dropped back down to the long term trend. I would expect something similar for this El Nino.

24948. Glenn Tamblyn at 07:02 AM on 22 March 2016
       Current record-shattering temperatures are shocking even to climate scientists
       

       A coral bleaching event on the GBR isn't just likely, it has started. The question now is whether the term 'massive' will apply.

24949. Hans Petter Jacobsen at 06:45 AM on 22 March 2016
       Tracking the 2°C Limit - February 2016
       

       I really liked the 'Tracking the 2 °C Limit' plot the first time I saw it, and I therefore generated a similar plot for my blog. I still like the plot, but I have a couple of comments on it.

       The plot and the text in the blog post focus on the 'Current 12 months average' and on the last month. If we focus too much on the warming in the current El Nino phase, we have to accept that the contrarians will focus on the cooling in the next La Nina phase. These ups and downs in temperature are caused by natural climate variability. Our concern must be the long term warming, and we should therefore concentrate on the long term trend line.

       My other comment is that the plot may give the impression that we may wait some years, maybe even a decade, before harsh measures to reduce the emissions must be implemented. This is because the temperature increases rather slowly due to the inertia in the climate system. Despite more than one hundred years with man-made carbon emissions, the long term temperature trend has increased by only 1 °C. In the next decade it will probably rise by another 0.2 °C, and there is still 0.3 °C left before the 1.5 °C limit is reached. We get a more grim and realistic view on the situation if we focus on the carbon emissions and on the carbon budgets. If the current carbon emissions continue as they were in 2014, the IPCC carbon budget for 1.5 °C warming will be exhausted in six years.

       I have written more about this on my blog.

24950. KR at 06:08 AM on 22 March 2016
       Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?
       

       billev - Short term variations (such as ENSO and volcanic activity) are part of the data as well, and if you are actually trying to establish the long term trends they have to be accounted for in some fashion or another. 

       2002 to now (just 13-14 years) is far too short for statistical significance given the underlying climate trends and short term variability; I'm afraid your claims in that regard aren't supported by the numbers. 

       As to the amount and effect of CO2, I suggest reading the SkS article on the 'CO2 is just a trace gas' denial myth - doubling one of the few IR active long term greenhouse gases certainly has an effect. Arguments from personal incredulity (your 'difficult time believing') are a farily common logical fallacy. 

Prev  491  492  493  494  495  496  497  498  499  500  501  502  503  504  505  506  Next