Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 Next
Comments 32601 to 32650:
-
wili at 03:26 AM on 7 December 20142014 SkS Weekly News Roundup #49B
WRT: "CO2 takes just 10 years to reach planet’s peak heat"
I wonder if some of the good folks here would have the time to do a main post on this. I frankly don't know what to make of it. Is this without including aerosols? Other feedbacks?? In their own graph, the line that says "Max" clearly peaks at about 30 years after initial emissions. In other words, I'm confused. And I'm betting many others are, too. So any further light you could throw on how to interpret this finding (Is it valid? Is there something they missed? If it's valid, is it 'good' or 'bad' news?...) would be greatly appreciated.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 02:17 AM on 7 December 2014Even climate change experts and activists might be in denial
Alexandre @4,
Burning non-renewable buried hydrocarbons simply cannot be continued. Not only does the activity produce harmful consequences, not just excess CO2, it is simply a dead-end activity.
The future of humanity requires no person to succeed in benefiting from burning the stuff, except temporary benefit obtained exclusively by the least fortunate to develop to sustainable ways of living. The richest should be required to live totally sustainably.
The reality is that there already is not enough that is easily available for everyone to burn as much as they want. We already have had many vicious global battles as greedy pursuers fight over the ability to benefit more than others while they disguise and excuse their pursuits as 'fights for freedom' or whatever other deception might gather 'sufficient' popular support in the moment.
There are already many developed ways to live decently without burning any non-renewable buried hydrocarbons. The problem is the perception that "it is impossible to live decently without burning the stuff". And the largest promoters of that delusion are the people who have the greatest potential to personally profit from prolonging the burning of the stuff. That said, it is clear that anyone enjoying an unsustainable and damaging lifestyle would 'get less personal enjoyment' from living more sustainably. The resistance to giving up any excess pleasure and enjoyment is the real problem.
Future generations have no vote, marketing power, legal power, or investment and purchasing power today. That continues to keep people who are immersed in current day over-consumptive socioeconomic activity focused on things that are popular and profitable for themselves in their region in their time, to the detriment of others and the future.
-
Alexandre at 23:59 PM on 6 December 2014Even climate change experts and activists might be in denial
I disagree with the article. You don't have to jump out of a ship to question the route it's taking.
Virtually everything you do today emits carbon. Leo DiCaprio could not make a film, and people could not watch it without emiting carbon. Skeptical Science could not be a website without carbon-based electricity to run the internet providers or people's computers. This does not mean denial. This means our society is based on a unsustainable system that requires polluting the atmosphere until -if unabated- it wrecks nature and agriculture.
I'm all for iniciatives to emit less, both individual and collective ones. I plant trees and gave up gasoline in my car (I use sugar cane ethanol). I recycle as much as I can, and help other households do so as well with my personal time and effort. I try to use as little electricity as possible. And I know this is not nearly enough to curb emissions.
If someone wants to campaign or lobby or research for a change in this system, he or she will have to travel, use electricty, eat food, wear clothes. This all has a carbon footprint today. I encourage this campaigner to be as effective and energy efficient as he can, but by all means, he should go on and do his work as well as he can, with my blessings.
-
shoyemore at 21:19 PM on 6 December 2014Even climate change experts and activists might be in denial
Sou has a post on the survey here
Climate action priorities of the populace
AS she points out, it is an internet poll, therefore suspect, though the sample is huge.
-
shoyemore at 21:06 PM on 6 December 2014Even climate change experts and activists might be in denial
Interesting survey - it is hardly lack of communication, since in the countries where these issues are most effectively communicated (Western Europe, North American, Australia, New Zealand) action on climate change rises into the Top 10. For example, in Western Europe it is the 6th most important issue, ranking just a hundred votes or so below "Freedom from Discrimination and Persecution".
You can also note that many issues ranking above action on climate change overlap with it heavily. You cannot address reliable energy, or access to clean water, or protection for rivers and forests, or affordable food, without bumping up against climate change in some form or other.
In other words, this is a complex output that demands more than a superficial reading.
-
william11409 at 17:37 PM on 6 December 2014Even climate change experts and activists might be in denial
From a recent world wide poll of over 6 million conducted by the United Nations (vote.myworld2015.org), climate change is placed last in a list of 16 items of concern to people (data.myworld2015.org). Why is this so? Lack of effective communication? Lack of interest? Not affecting people's daily lives? No incentives to change habits? Don't believe the science?
-
Tristan at 17:09 PM on 6 December 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Likely to Surpass 2010 as Warmest Year on Record
I don't think it'll be a calendar record for UAH or RSS. Very hard for a non El-Nino year to set records in the lower tropospheric temperature series.
-
Donny at 16:31 PM on 6 December 2014Volcanoes may be responsible for most of the global surface warming slowdown
So this would mean that some of the "missing heat" never actually made it to earth?
-
elisat1 at 13:17 PM on 6 December 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Likely to Surpass 2010 as Warmest Year on Record
jimlj @ 22,
Please define "calendar record". If you mean a record for global mean temperature anomaly in calendar year 2014, I don't see how you get that from the UAH data.
I did a quick average of the UAH monthly global anomalies over two complete calendar years. 2010 comes in at +0.40C, 1998 comes in closer to +0.42C while the 2014 averaged anomaly comes in at +0.272C through end of November. By that calculation, in order for the calendar year anomaly for 2014 to equal that for 2010, the December, 2014 anomaly would have to come in at +1.78C, in other words it would have to be the warmest month since December, 1978 (the start of the UAH table) by a factor of about 2.7.
-
TallDave at 08:08 AM on 6 December 2014Phil Jones says no global warming since 1995
"When all the heat accumulating in the oceans, warming the land and atmosphere and melting ice is tallied up, we see that global warming is still happening."
Naturally this article fails to mention that since the hydrosphere is 271 times as massive as the atmosphere, if oceans are absorbing the heat they are likely to moderate AGW into a nonproblem, as the average ocean temperature has only changed by .1 degrees in 50 years, an amount that is probably smaller than measurement error.
Moderator Response:[PS] please note the comments policy, especially the section on sloganeering. There are numerous papers on measurement error and you wish to dispute that please provide evidence to support it. That the oceans ameliorate warming hardly needs stating - without oceans, we would have warming by 36C. If you wish to propose that somehow heat uptake can increase to make it a "non-problem", then provide evidence to back it. The evidence from papers in the IPCC reports do not appear to support your argument. Further speculative sloganeering without support will be deleted.
-
wili at 03:42 AM on 6 December 2014Drought and Deforestation in Brazil
Thanks again for the info. Pretty much what I though. I imagine that most of the soybeans also go toward cattle feed. So pretty much our burger habit is obliterating the most populous area on this half of the planet...nice.
Meanwhile, as they scrape ever further toward the bottom of the barrel, water quality is getting noticably worse, and it's likely causing long-term damage to infrastructure: translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=pt&u=http://noticias.portalvox.com/sao-paulo/2014/12/sabesp-registra-82-de-volume-de-agua-sistema-cantareira.html&prev=search -
SDK at 03:24 AM on 6 December 2014Models are unreliable
Just to add. How many in the general population would understand that today the model ensemble mean is correct because it strays away from the instrumental record? And that if the observed data was closer to the mean -— or even exactly on top it -— it would in fact be more wrong?
Now there’s a pedagogical challenge...
-
One Planet Only Forever at 03:00 AM on 6 December 2014Drought and Deforestation in Brazil
Deforestation for ranching, plantations and farming is also a major reason for the reduction of Indonesia's rain forests.
And in many nations the ranching, plantations, and farming is not done for 'internal consumption'. In many cases it is done for international trade. In some cases less fortunate nations are fooled into accepting 'development' loans to build massive infrastructure that is promised to bring them 'properity'. And the infrastructure is specifically focused on international trade, it is not hospitals and schools. All that it brings them is insurmountable debt and a desperate desire to expand their production of basic commodities for international trade. And their expansion of that activity reduces global prices for commodities reducing the benefit they get, all while their debt payments grow.
-
Phil at 02:26 AM on 6 December 2014The Beginners Guide to Representative Concentration Pathways - Part 3
There is one thing that seems to be missing from this (otherwise excellent) series. The relationship between CO2 emissions and their atmospheric concentration is known to be fractional (it is, if I recall correctly, currently about 45%) due to the uptake of CO2 by the oceans - acting as a carbon "sink" (and also resulting in ocean acidification). There is also some uncertainty over whether this figure will remain constant over time, but general agreement that it represents an upper bound on the ocean's capability to act as a CO2 sink.
So my question is; do the RCP's assume a constant ocean uptake of CO2 (at ~55%) or do they assume a decrease over time ? Also can we assume the uncertainty associated with GCM tempature projections do not include any contribution from the ocean uptake decreasing over time ?
Thanks -
billthefrog at 02:23 AM on 6 December 2014Volcanoes may be responsible for most of the global surface warming slowdown
MarkR@11
"circumference divided by diameter"
I'm afraid that's just Pi in the sky, Mark.
;)
-
SDK at 00:12 AM on 6 December 2014Models are unreliable
Thanks for the charts (from a fellow Tom who is also knee-deep into chart porn…)
Forget about the deniers, but these charts are not even close to addressing the concerns of the fencers either. At least when we need to attach complex disclaimers to them. I mean, if you ask say 90% + of the general population, they would have no idea what the ensemble mean actually erm… means in the first place. Isn’t that kind of a “double catastrophe” when you add the battle of public relations? We’ve won on the science, but losing badly in communications and framing the issue. Unfortunately, science doesn’t always fit nicely on a bumper sticker.
Sure, I can provide charts with the short-term weather noise removed, but then I’ll always be accused of chart manipulation… “after the fact”.
What if I had a chart e.g. from the early 2000s, showing that if the 3 main short-term natural fluctuations put a downward pressure on the GST in the coming years, it will produce a flattening of the curve? Further, why not just produce hundreds of those -— with a combination of premises -— which can subsequently be checked “after the fact”? As appendixes to the IPCC reports? Just asking as it sure as hell would've made my life easier arguing the AGW case on other forums.
-
Tom Curtis at 21:52 PM on 5 December 2014Volcanoes may be responsible for most of the global surface warming slowdown
MarkR @11, perhaps circumference divided by wavelength? But other than that, yes you are correct.
-
MarkR at 21:21 PM on 5 December 2014Volcanoes may be responsible for most of the global surface warming slowdown
I meant to say circumference divided by diameter...
Anyway, Tom's comments provide more detail as to why volcanic aerosols tend to have a cooling effect.
-
Alexandre at 20:32 PM on 5 December 2014Drought and Deforestation in Brazil
wili at 13:43 PM on 5 December, 2014
The data I have about that are not very recent (one paper from 2009 and another from 2003, both in Portuguese), but I don't think this has changed much in the meantime. It's mainly cattle ranching (more than half), and agriculture to a lesser extent, especially soybean plantation.
It's interesting and sad to notice that logging is a very minor activity comparing to those. Often the deforestation process is done with tractors simply pulling the trees out and discarding the wood. Logging is not a first step to other activities, either.
-
MarkR at 18:16 PM on 5 December 2014Volcanoes may be responsible for most of the global surface warming slowdown
Tom @8: there is a hidden wavelength dependence in Mie scattering. In the lecture notes you give, through the size parameter. This is labelled as 'x' in Eq. 9.36, and is (for a spherical particle) the diameter divided by the wavelength.
The scattering efficiency has a wavelength-squared depndence, even in the Mie regime. The phase function is also dependent on size parameter, with larger particles showing more forward scattering. And the scattering cross section also increases with particle size, assuming no major changes in the scattering efficiency.
So I'm pretty sure that aerosol scattering still has some wavelength dependence. It's weaker than Rayleigh scattering, but it is there.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 16:00 PM on 5 December 2014Drought and Deforestation in Brazil
vonMackwitz @3,
Unfortunately this recent BBC article indicates that what you hope for is not as likely as it needs to be.
-
wili at 13:43 PM on 5 December 2014Drought and Deforestation in Brazil
Thanks, Alexandre and vonMackwitz. Do either of you (or anyone else) have a clear idea what the main reasons for deforestation are in that particular region?
-
Tom Dayton at 12:17 PM on 5 December 2014It hasn't warmed since 1998
Excellent new post about the pause/hiatus (not) at RealClimate.
-
vonMackwitz at 11:58 AM on 5 December 2014Drought and Deforestation in Brazil
I sure hope that deforestation in Brazil will finally stop. If the deforestation really is contributing to draughts (which I think is likely), Brazil people will have to learn the hard way that reforestation is easier said than done.
-
CO2 effect is saturated
Anne Hyzer - In the troposphere convective overturning dominates, with the atmosphere warmed from below, under a state of constant inversion. Once past the GHG effective radiating altitude (where more than ~50% of upward emission for the wavelength in question is escaping to space without further absorption) and into the stratosphere, the dominant influence is UV warming from the sun, which is strongest at higher altitudes. And since the stratosphere is thermally stable, warmer at the top, convective overturning doesn't occur there.
-
Alexandre at 09:38 AM on 5 December 2014Drought and Deforestation in Brazil
Hi wili,Here in Brazil we've had some coverage of the (possible) link between drought and deforestation in the mainstream media (like this one, in a major news/entertainment Sunday show). The denialist lobby is not as strong here as it is in the US.Of course, nothing seems to suggest that public opinion will demand any action so far... -
Tom Curtis at 08:49 AM on 5 December 2014Volcanoes may be responsible for most of the global surface warming slowdown
rkrolph @6, it is an often neglected subtlety of climate change that the duration it takes to reach the full equilibrium response to a change in forcing is approximately equal to the duration required for the CO2 partial pressures of the atmosphere and ocean to equalize. That means, in the 100 plus years it will take to from current temperatues to the approximately 2 C Equilibrium Climate Response to 400 ppmv of CO2, the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere would have reduced to 340 ppmv. That means with the immediate cessation of all emissions, we are very unlikely to reach the 2 C limit. This only applies with the cessation of all emissions. Even continuing emissions at 10% of the current rate will sustain CO2 levels at a near constant level making it near 50/50 that we will exceed the 2 C limit at some time in the next century.
Unfortunately the IPCC tends to focus only on events in this century, and consider another 150 ppmv of CO2 in the atmosphere to be the limit compatible with having a 50/50 chance of avoiding the 2 C limit as of 2080-2100. As a matter of practical policy that is probably correct, but it does commit us to future sequestrtion of CO2 from the atmosphere.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:37 AM on 5 December 2014CO2 effect is saturated
Anne Hyzer @375, you are correct about the stratosphere increasing in temperature with altitude. Most IR radiation from the atmosphere comes from the tropospheresphere, however, so the above explanation is a reasonable simplification.
For a more detailed explanation, considering the following spectrum of outgoing IR radiation from an unknown (by me) location:
The spectrum has conveniently placed black body curves for particular temperatures (dashed lines). From that you can see that the chief absorption band for CO2 (centered at 650 cm^-1) has a broad flat base at approximately 220 K. That flat base represents the tropopause, where temperatures are unchanging with altitude for several kilometers (see temperature profile below). At the center of that flat base are two peaks, one much larger than the other. That represents radiation from the stratosphere. Also, and very importantly, on either side of the broad absorption band, at about 240 K, and againg at 250 K temperature, you will see notches in the wall, with the former being deeper and the latter broader. These are notches are from local peaks in absorption (emission) which are located within the troposphere.
As CO2 concentration increases, emissions at all wavenumbers in the CO2 brand will come from higher altitudes. That will have several effects. First, the broad plateau at 220 K will become wider emissions from the upper troposphere move into the tropopause. Second, the notches at 240 and 250 K will become wider and deeper as the emissions causing them move higher in the stratosphere. Also, the small notch at 800 cm^-1 will also deepen and widen (that notch also being due to CO2). Against this, the two peaks at the center will grow higher and widen. The combination of the other effects, however, will result in a greater reduction in IR radiation than will the increase due to increased emission from the stratosphere. As an added nuance, the increased CO2 will cool the stratosphere, which will tend to limit the increase in height and bredth of the central peak.
So, overall, outgoing IR emissions will decrease with increasing CO2, and that decrease will be entirely due to higher emission in the troposphere as indicated in the original post. The increase will be only partly offset by an increase in radiation from the stratosphere. All of this is included in determinations of CO2 forcing from standard radation models and Global Circulation Models, although arguably it was neglected prior to the correction to the basic formular for CO2 forcing by Myrhe et al, 1998.
-
Tom Curtis at 08:05 AM on 5 December 2014Volcanoes may be responsible for most of the global surface warming slowdown
MarkR @5, you have the essentials correct except that the blueness of the sky (and redness of sunsets) is due to Rayleigh Scattering, something that requires particles sizes about a tenth or less of the wavelength of light, it 38 to 75 billionth of a meter. Sulfate aerosols typically have sizes from 100 billionth to 5 millionth of a meter, and hence are scattered primarilly by Mie Scattering, which does not discriminate by wavelength. Because aerosol sizes have a size distribution, a small proportion of aerosols are small enough for Rayleigh scattering and will contribute to reder sunsets. Further, the wavelength of thermal radiation from the Earth is sufficiently large that scattering by aerosols is restricted to Rayleigh scattering, and is hence less efficient as you note. For a mathematical treatment, these lecture notes may be useful.
In addition to the scattering effect (the aerosol direct effect), aerosols form condensation nuclei for clouds, resulting in the aerosol indirect effect. The more condensation nuclei, the more water droplets in a given cloud, and the smaller the droplet size. That in turn results in a higher albedo in the cloud. This is seen in the phenomon of ship tracks, where clouds are thicker and more reflective over the paths of ships (as seen below):
For reference, here is one of the early papers on the effects of aerosols.
-
wili at 07:57 AM on 5 December 2014Volcanoes may be responsible for most of the global surface warming slowdown
1) "I am assuming that the 2 deg on the y-axis is the 2 degree value we always hear discussed as the point we want to avoid exceeding"
No. The chart set its "0 degree" mark at the average for the last half of the 20th century, specifically 1961 - 1990. Whereas the 2 degree C limit dicussed in treaties is from a "0 degree" mark from the 1800s, iirc.
2) "Is there a delay effect such that even if we stopped emissions completely today that we might still reach the 2 degree point?"
Yes...well, probably. But in any case, we are not going to 100% stop emissions this year. So it's a moot point. Continued emissions at anything like todays levels for the next few years makes it pretty much impossible to stay below 2 degrees, as I understand it.
If you have a few moments, look at this from one of the top climatologists in the UK: Kevin Anderson 'Rhetoric to Reality'
If you have more than a few minutes, try this:
Real clothes for the Emperor: Facing the challenges of climate change
-
wili at 07:06 AM on 5 December 2014Drought and Deforestation in Brazil
Thanks for covering this important story in such a thoughtful, big-picture way. If only we saw more coverage like this from other, more main stream, media!
-
Anne Hyzer at 06:18 AM on 5 December 2014CO2 effect is saturated
I have a question. This debunking depends on the fact that stratospheric temperatures decrease with increasing elevation, so the CO2 gets colder as you gp higher, and radiates less. But I was always told that the stratosphere does not decrease in temperature with increased height. Please explain.
-
rkrolph at 04:50 AM on 5 December 2014Volcanoes may be responsible for most of the global surface warming slowdown
Can someone explain in a quick summary why the big swings in projected ranges from FAR to SAR, and then TAR? Also, I am assuming that the 2 deg on the y-axis is the 2 degree value we always hear discussed as the point we want to avoid exceeding. Is there a delay effect such that even if we stopped emissions completely today that we might still reach the 2 degree point?
-
MarkR at 03:17 AM on 5 December 2014Volcanoes may be responsible for most of the global surface warming slowdown
MThompson: iirc, aerosols have a cooling effect because they scatter light.
Scattering by atmospheric molecules explains some of the blueness of the sky. Scattering is stronger when the wavelength is shorter, and blue light has a shorter wavelength so it's scattered more strongly. Instead of passing through the sky above our heads, more of it is scattered down and we see it.
Visible light has a shorter wavelength than infrared light, so it is much more strongly scattered by aerosols. This means that they bounce back more light from the Sun than they do from the Earth, so they have a net cooling effect.
I think this is a reasonable summary of what's going on. There's more detail to it as well: in reality it's related to the size parameter rather than the wavelength alone, aerosols have other effects (like helping to form bigger particles), while black carbon and soot helps to absorb more light so has a warming effect. There is also the 'phase function', which determines the direction of scattering... but all of this is accounted for and the result is that volcanic aerosols cool the surface.
-
longjohn119 at 17:09 PM on 4 December 201497 Hours - the Turkish edition
Climate Change is a global problem that can only be solved by global cooperation
Thanks for providing a positive example of how this can work
-
Tristan at 16:13 PM on 4 December 2014Volcanoes may be responsible for most of the global surface warming slowdown
Ahh, thanks Rob :)
-
Rob Honeycutt at 15:11 PM on 4 December 2014Volcanoes may be responsible for most of the global surface warming slowdown
Tristan... Try the second paper that Dana links to.
-
Tristan at 15:07 PM on 4 December 2014Volcanoes may be responsible for most of the global surface warming slowdown
If there is a volcanism related 'slowdown' over the period of 1999-2014 , that requires those years to have been unusually volcanically active compared the previous 30, which included Pinutabo and St Helens.
Is that demonstrated in the paper? It doesn't give enough detail in the abstract.
-
MThompson at 14:10 PM on 4 December 2014Volcanoes may be responsible for most of the global surface warming slowdown
Maybe someone can help me understand the part about sulfur aerosol particulates blocking sunlight. Are these particulates highly reflective in any of the more abundant solar wavelenths?
-
Tom Curtis at 08:13 AM on 4 December 2014Models are unreliable
SDK @784, what you are looking for was in fact provided in the draft version of the recent IPCC report:
In this graph, the range of the projections are given as the range between the mean projections for two different but plausible bau scenarios. To that is appended the grey zone representing the reasonable range of annual variability due to short term factors such as ENSO. The graph was ammended in the final report, mostly because of a fake controversy (see here and here)generated by ignoring that fact (which was not sufficiently emphasized by defenders of climate science, myself included). The graph does have some flaws, including an inappropriate baselining on a single year and the fact that the grey zone, out of graphic necessity, is drawn from the upper or lower limit of all projections. Therefore caution should be used in presenting that graph, which should not be presented without the disclaimers regarding its flaws, in links to rebutals of the trumped up controversy.
For these reasons, I prefer my own graph which plots observations against all model runs for AR4:
Doing so allows the actual model variability to define the expected annual variability, thereby eliminating the false perception of smoothness sometimes generated by showing only ensemble means for projections. The test for those claiming the models failed to project the current temperatures is to pick out the observations from the projections. If they cannot do so easilly, then the model projections have correctly captured both the trends (see below) and the range of annual variability.
-
SDK at 03:04 AM on 4 December 2014Models are unreliable
Long time reader of SkS, but not a poster. I was explained the basics of AGW and modelling in the 90s by a crazy Swedish mathematician / scientist, and as a data modeler I took it to heart. My main academic field is Philosophy, but you gotta earn a buck as well I guess…
Question I have though is with regard to the IPCC year-by-year model results. As I understand it, most “skeptics” infer that the farther away observations stray from the ensemble mean, the more wrong you are. As if the ensemble boundaries are error bars of sorts.
But that’s far from being the case of course. In fact, today the models are actually correct when hugging the lower boundaries, given the downward pressure of volcanic activity, short-term solar cycles and a net negative pseudo-ENSO cycle since 1998.
Just wondering then if the IPCC should perhaps offer some qualified projection-scenarios? Like, explaining in 2000 that a possible future La Nina-dominated decade would in fact produce a flatter curve? Certainly would help explain things to my right-wing friends… And the larger public as well. I understand that the ensemble mean does not include natural variability, but lots of people don't...
-
jimlj at 15:15 PM on 3 December 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Likely to Surpass 2010 as Warmest Year on Record
The UAH November satellite data is out. It shows a 0.33C anomaly from the 1981-2010 period. If that translates to other temperature records, then November will be one of the warmest on record, and pretty much nail down a calendar record.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 00:08 AM on 3 December 2014The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
Kevin C. ignore my @ 63. This would only matter when looking at short sets of data so it is not relaly relevant.
-
dvaytw at 19:19 PM on 2 December 2014Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
Thanks for all the input, everyone. In the future I will do exactly that (link to where the discussion is happening).
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:15 PM on 2 December 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Likely to Surpass 2010 as Warmest Year on Record
Tom Curtis @ 19,
I have also noticed a degree of success by delayers (a term I prefer because the smart ones know they can't sustain the delusions they try to prolong), in making-up their definition of the 'hiatus' reference in the IPCC report. The hiatus was clearly intended to indicate a temporary slowing of the rate of increase, not that it had ended. The word-spin-masters created the easy to accept claim that hiatus meant 'no more warming has occurred and the scientists said so themselves, so the science is wrong and can continue to be ignored'. The main audience of the delayers is people who are not really interested in checking things out for themselves. Many people look for what they prefer to hear and are willing to accept whatever sounds believable and agreeable to them (exactly like sports fans who ignore the bad facts about their favorite team and accept the unsubstantiated criticisms of the teams they do not like). That is a tough group to motivate to better understand what is going on, because that better understanding is likely contrary to their preferences and interests.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:04 PM on 2 December 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Likely to Surpass 2010 as Warmest Year on Record
RE: My Comment @15,
My mistake. I forgot to enter 2015 as the end year to get the 2014 data.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 13:02 PM on 2 December 2014The Skeptical Science temperature trend calculator
Kevin C,
Ignore @ 62. I had forgotten to input 2015 as the end year to get the latest data.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:53 AM on 2 December 2014Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
KR @49, please read the comment linked in my post @48. It is very clear from it that dvaytw is exactly as he presents himself, a person who accepts the science and comes to SkS for help with issues he has not seen before. Clearly any misunderstandings in the past were exactly that, and it would behove use to pay more attention to our contribution to such misunderstandings rather than direct the blame solely at dvaytw.
Having said that, I agree with your suggestion of links to off site discussions when advise is being sought.
-
Tom Curtis at 10:07 AM on 2 December 2014Mercury Rising: 2014 Likely to Surpass 2010 as Warmest Year on Record
Yvan Dutil, the trends from 1995.0 to 2007.93 are:
GISS 0.198+/-0.18 C/Decade
NOAA 0.17 +/- 0.17 C/Decade
HadCRUT4 0.198 +/- 0.181 C/Decade
BEST 0.219 +/- 0.173 C/Decade
Cowtan & Way Krig 0.237 +/- 0.185 C/Decade
Cowtan & Way Hybrid 0.238 +/- 0.197 C/Decade
That is, all surface temperature records show a statistically significant warming from 1995 to the end of 2007. That clearly shows the purported "pause" in global temperature increase is in fact just a decline in average temperatures over the past six years. Further, in that six year period a new record for annual global mean surface temperatures was set in 2010, with apparently a new record about to be set. That shows starkly that the "pause" really just comes down to the effect of two strong La Nina events, one of which included the strongest La Nina configuration in 137 years of record:
It remains a tribute to the skills of deniers at persuasive definition that many people continue to believe there has actually been a cessation of global warming.
-
Mann Fights Back Against Denialist Abuse
dvaytw - As per earlier discussions where exactly the same thing happened (you presented a denial viewpoint asking for refutation, but did not clearly show that it _wasn't_ concern trolling, leading to predictable reactions from the moderators), it would be exceedingly helpful if you would link where these off SkS discussions were occurring.
Context matters. You are again failing to provide any.
Moderator Response:[JH] I concur.
Prev 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 Next
