16 year plateau in global surface temperatures puzzles climate scientists [Archive]

Jantar

18th October 2012, 10:03

And even those scientists who won't accept that a 16 year plateu exists still admit that the anthropogenic portion of climate change is only half of what has been previously claimed.

When the AMO is included, in addition to the other explanatory variables such as ENSO, volcano and solar influences commonly included in the multiple linear regression analysis, the recent 50-year and 32-year anthropogenic warming trends are reduced by a factor of at least two. There is no statistical evidence of a recent slow-down of global warming, nor is there evidence of accelerated warming since the mid-20th century

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0208.1

Akzle

18th October 2012, 17:50

yeah, like you were going to do something about it anyway...

carbonhed

18th October 2012, 18:23

And even those scientists who won't accept that a 16 year plateu exists still admit that the anthropogenic portion of climate change is only half of what has been previously claimed.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0208.1

I saw that.

Half the warming expected so presumably the feedbacks in the models are exagerated. Plus there's been no acceleration in the rate of warming since the mid 20th century despite CO2 levels increasing so markedly... explain that.

SPman

18th October 2012, 20:50

Arctic sea ice extent averaged for September 2012 was the lowest in the satellite record, and was 16% lower than the previous low for the month, which occurred in 2007

271888
So,this is all a figment of our imagination then...........

Ocean1

18th October 2012, 20:56

So,this is all a figment of our imagination then...........

Can't see pic. But it wouldn't surprise me if the hysteresis in polar ice melt were decades behind mean air temp.

ducatilover

18th October 2012, 21:01

So,this is all a figment of our imagination then...........
You serial? There are not enough colours for that to be legitimate.

scumdog

18th October 2012, 21:01

Ge, I'm really surprised at that revelation...:rolleyes:

SPman

18th October 2012, 21:02

271889..............

ducatilover

18th October 2012, 21:15

That looks pretty legit to me, more colours and lines.

WE'RE DOOMED!

Woodman

18th October 2012, 21:25

Yes, but according to the Earths natural cycle we are supposd to be heading into another ice age and the Earth should be cooling therefore an even temp IS actually warming.

Winston001

18th October 2012, 22:08

Want your money back yet?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

The glaring warning about the accuracy of this article is that it is published by the Daily Mail, a cheerful tabloid which plays fast and loose with piffiling things like facts and accuracy. Plus the author David Rose is a known anti-climate science ranter.

If it was in the Guardian or the Telegraph then it could be read more seriously. But it ain't.

Then there is the small matter of the Met Office itself - the alleged source of this astonishing "fact" - which says the article is wrong. In some detail. http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

If that isn't enough, Sceptical Science which challenges dodgy stuff including some climate science, nevertheless says the Daily Mail article is plain wrong. http://skepticalscience.com/nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html

The Earth's temp is slowly increasing, sea levels are rising, sea water is acidifying (very bad news for shell fish and corals), our atmosphere is becoming polluted, and soils are poisoned in spots of dense population. None of this is going to get better any time soon.

Jantar

18th October 2012, 22:46

Arctic sea ice extent averaged for September 2012 was the lowest in the satellite record, and was 16% lower than the previous low for the month, which occurred in 2007 So,this is all a figment of our imagination then...........

While at the same time antarctic sea ice was at a record high.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=79369&src=twitter-iotd

Jantar

18th October 2012, 22:57

..............

Mmm, the CRU 2005 graph? How about the 2012 one?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/to:2012

carbonhed

19th October 2012, 13:38

The glaring warning about the accuracy of this article is that it is published by the Daily Mail, a cheerful tabloid which plays fast and loose with piffiling things like facts and accuracy. Plus the author David Rose is a known anti-climate science ranter.

If it was in the Guardian or the Telegraph then it could be read more seriously. But it ain't.

Then there is the small matter of the Met Office itself - the alleged source of this astonishing "fact" - which says the article is wrong. In some detail. http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/

If that isn't enough, Sceptical Science which challenges dodgy stuff including some climate science, nevertheless says the Daily Mail article is plain wrong. http://skepticalscience.com/nuccitelli-et-al-2012.html

The Earth's temp is slowly increasing, sea levels are rising, sea water is acidifying (very bad news for shell fish and corals), our atmosphere is becoming polluted, and soils are poisoned in spots of dense population. None of this is going to get better any time soon.

Actually the Met Office article doesn't dispute the fact that there's been a 16 year plateau in global temperatures. How could they? It's their own figures.

What they do dispute is the significance of the plateau :-

"The models exhibit large variations in the rate of warming from year to year and over a decade, owing to climate variations such as ENSO, the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and Pacific Decadal Oscillation. So in that sense, such a period is not unexpected. It is not uncommon in the simulations for these periods to last up to 15 years, but longer periods are unlikely."

That's what they're saying now but let's take a look at what the team were saying a few years ago.

NOAA 2008 :-

“Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

Dr Phil Jones from the Climategate emails :-

‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’

Dr Roger Pielke Jr in 2009 :-

“Kudos to NOAA for being among the first to explicitly state what sort of observation would be inconsistent with model predictions — 15 years of no warming.”

Dr Ben Santer :-

"They find that tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human-caused changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere."

It's 16 years at the moment and in another couple of months it'll be 17. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation went into it's cold phase a couple of years ago and the latest El Nino sputtered out recently... the 7th Cavalry is not riding over the horizon to save you. At which point do you admit you're wrong? Is there actually any way to falsify your beliefs?

Banditbandit

19th October 2012, 13:47

Want your money back yet?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

I would not take reportr's interpretation of scientific data as gospel truth ...

And even those scientists who won't accept that a 16 year plateu exists still admit that the anthropogenic portion of climate change is only half of what has been previously claimed.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JAS-D-12-0208.1

That scientific article also says "The deduced net anthropogenic global warming trend has been remarkably steady and statistically significant for the past 100 years."

Jantar

19th October 2012, 14:01

...That scientific article also says "The deduced net anthropogenic global warming trend has been remarkably steady and statistically significant for the past 100 years."

Yes it does. :yes:

Oh, just when did man's CO2 contribution supposed to start having an effect that was greater than natural causes?

Just what has been the net anthropogenic global warming trend, and what did the IPCC claim it was?

Scuba_Steve

19th October 2012, 14:10

Yes, but according to the Earths natural cycle we are supposd to be heading into another ice age and the Earth should be cooling therefore an even temp IS actually warming.

Really? the earth has that info recorded somewhere???... or maybee it was just on 1 of those Mayan calendars I've heard so much about???

sea water is acidifying (very bad news for shell fish and corals), our atmosphere is becoming polluted, and soils are poisoned in spots of dense population. None of this is going to get better any time soon.

Which is why they should stop fucking round running scams to extort money from people for (arguably) harmless CO2 & fix the real problems like pollution... But then that would cost money rather than making Al Gore, BP, Shell, & Rockefeller's billions of $$$ each year

Winston001

19th October 2012, 14:37

Actually the Met Office article doesn't dispute the fact that there's been a 16 year plateau in global temperatures. How could they? It's their own figures...

It's 16 years at the moment and in another couple of months it'll be 17. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation went into it's cold phase a couple of years ago and the latest El Nino sputtered out recently... the 7th Cavalry is not riding over the horizon to save you. At which point do you admit you're wrong? Is there actually any way to falsify your beliefs?

Good post. FYI I used to deny climate change but changed my mind about 2006 when I started looking at the science. If its not really happening then I'll happily change back but its a complex system with cooling events as well as warming eg. current Antartica ice expansion, so no easy answers.

SPman

19th October 2012, 15:21

Really? the earth has that info recorded somewhere???... It's recorded all around you - in the rocks, sediments, tree rings, ice,.......or maybee it was just on 1 of those Mayan calendars I've heard so much about???

Which is why they should stop fucking round running scams to extort money from people for (arguably) harmless CO2 Oxygen is "harmless" as well - have too high a percentage and it will kill you very quickly.....& fix the real problems like pollution...Yep.... But then that would cost money - it's costing real money whether you try and do something about it or ignore the whole scenario...it's just a matter of when you pay... rather than making Al Gore, BP, Shell, & Rockefeller's billions of $$$ each year ?????? - BP and Shell make billions each year without any help from climate change arguments - they are part of the fecking problem when it comes to pollution and they pay five eighths of fuckall even when they are actually prosecuted - they certainly don't clean anything up!

Mmm, the CRU 2005 graph? How about the 2012 one?

This is the most recent one........to Dec 2010271925

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/ 271926
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem4/data/download.html - raw data

There is a plateauing over the last few years, but nothing outside what has occurred over previous occasions. Locally, this year is shaping up to be a scorcher - the hottest October on record already (only 180 yrs of records, mind you), in a series of steadily rising temps.

imdying

19th October 2012, 15:31

Really? the earth has that info recorded somewhere???Yep, all over the place, that's why we have (amongst others) geologists!

James Deuce

19th October 2012, 15:35

We're approaching another Solar Minimum, so expect dire threats about global cooling.

george formby

19th October 2012, 15:41

Locally, this year is shaping up to be a scorcher - the hottest October on record already (only 180 yrs of records, mind you), in a series of steadily rising temps.
[/LEFT]

I predicted that when the Monarchs started laying eggs again in August. Our Pohutukawas look like they will pop at any minute and big schools of Kingfish in the Bay already....

Ken Ring? Pah! Gonna start me own prediction site. Fanciful Formbys Factless Future FYI's. Catchy..:yes:

bogan

19th October 2012, 15:41

Don't you see, for the last 16 years people have been whinging about it, and taxing things based on it, and some people have even been reducing emissions. And now, it has stabilised, shirley this is a cause for celebration, marvel in what humanity has done and strive to go further.

george formby

19th October 2012, 15:42

Winston001

19th October 2012, 15:55

Which is why they should stop fucking round running scams to extort money from people for (arguably) harmless CO2 & fix the real problems like pollution... But then that would cost money rather than making Al Gore, BP, Shell, & Rockefeller's billions of $$$ each year

Totally agree that we should be focused on pollution because that is the big problem and one that people can understand.

Unfortunately carbon is part of the pollution problem. Almost every source of pollution also involves burning or converting hydrocarbons such as oil coal and gas - which releases carbon into the atmosphere.

The oceans soak up a lot of CO2 which is good but there is a price. CO2 + water = acid (consider how Coke will strip paint) which is very bad news for calcium carbonate organisms - shell fish, corals, and plankton. So reducing our carbon output helps reduce pollution.

Mind you, can't see us doing it. The carbon trading idea has failed with the original price $12-15/tonne but today about $5/tonne.

george formby

19th October 2012, 16:02

I think it was the Gaia guy - James Lovelock? who said no radical action would be taken until we are sat in front of the telly watching people die by their millions due to pollution & it's consequences. Or words to that effect.
Sadly, I think he is right.

Big Dave

19th October 2012, 16:08

We have a Carbon Tax over here now. My power bill almost doubled last quarter.
Everybody has just put or is putting their prices up to cover it.

Jantar

19th October 2012, 16:11

This is the most recent one........to Dec 2010
......

There is a plateauing over the last few years, but nothing outside what has occurred over previous occasions. Locally, this year is shaping up to be a scorcher - the hottest October on record already (only 180 yrs of records, mind you), in a series of steadily rising temps.
[/LEFT]

I assure you that 2010 is NOT the most recent one. They have released data up to September 2012.

And why do you persist in showing the full range of data when the claim is only about the trend since 1997? Maybe its because no-one disputes the temperature has climbed ever since we came out of the LIA and showing the last 16 years embedded inside the last 160 years hides the plateau.

Locally, this year is shaping up to be a very cool one. One of the coldest octobers on record already. (only 83 years of data available). Locally for me is Alexandra, what is locally for you? Oh, and I get my local data from http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/. Where are you getting your data from?

carbonhed

19th October 2012, 16:30

Unfortunately carbon is part of the pollution problem. Almost every source of pollution also involves burning or converting hydrocarbons such as oil coal and gas - which releases carbon into the atmosphere.

The oceans soak up a lot of CO2 which is good but there is a price. CO2 + water = acid (consider how Coke will strip paint) which is very bad news for calcium carbonate organisms - shell fish, corals, and plankton. So reducing our carbon output helps reduce pollution.

CO2 is not pollution it's one of the fundamental building blocks of life. Plants love elevated levels of CO2. Milder temperatures, higher levels of CO2 and the biosphere blooms... it's going to be great!

Ocean acidification? Can you say hysterically overhyped? Do the ecotards have any other modus operandi?

http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/scripps-blockbuster-ocean-acidification-happens-all-the-time-naturally/

mashman

19th October 2012, 16:40

We have a Carbon Tax over here now. My power bill almost doubled last quarter.
Everybody has just put or is putting their prices up to cover it.

Make it too expensive meaning that people use less so that there's capacity for growth :rofl:

I see we still have evidence for and against man influenced climate change and panic when a butterfly farts in China because it means that there's a 50% chance of there being a hotter year that "normal" next year :facepalm: S'ok though, throw more money at analysis and we'll get the answers we want.

Scuba_Steve

19th October 2012, 22:43

The oceans soak up a lot of CO2 which is good but there is a price. CO2 + water = acid (consider how Coke will strip paint) which is very bad news for calcium carbonate organisms - shell fish, corals, and plankton. So reducing our carbon output helps reduce pollution.

That argument doesn't fly. Coke strips paint, cleans coins, dissolves bones etc, Carbonated water does not! in-fact it does shit all of nothing. Hell not even cokes main competition Pepsi does anywhere as much damage as Coke manages.

DEATH_INC.

19th October 2012, 23:30

I think we should just accept that no-one knows what the hell is happening. And that wimpy sugar water they call coke now is shit for cleaning stuff.
Just keep paying them and we'll all be happy <_<

Jantar

19th October 2012, 23:31

...
The oceans soak up a lot of CO2 which is good but there is a price. CO2 + water = acid (consider how Coke will strip paint) which is very bad news for calcium carbonate organisms - shell fish, corals, and plankton. So reducing our carbon output helps reduce pollution. ......

Pure water has a ph of 7.0, acid is a ph less than 7, and alkaline is ph of greater than 7. Sea water has an average value of 8.1 which makes it alkaline, not acidic. An increase of ph from 8.1 to 8 is not more acidic as some would claim, it is merely less akaline. An analogy is that if you improve your bank balance from $1000 OD to $900 OD is it correct to say that you are 10% wealthier? Or are you 10% less in debt?

The ph of our oceans has an average value of around 8.1, but varies quite considerably in various parts of the world. It can also vary greatly in single locations due to weather effects. Sites in central Oregon, for example, can drop from a pH of 8.1 to 7.6 during periods of ‘upwelling’. This is a much greater range than any change in ph due to added CO2. The global range is from 7.5 to 8.8.

This chart may help put things into perpective. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:PH_Scale.svg&page=1

SPman

20th October 2012, 03:04

I assure you that 2010 is NOT the most recent one. They have released data up to September 2012. not disputed - the data is in but that chart is all that was to hand

And why do you persist in showing the full range of data when the claim is only about the trend since 1997?Maybe its because no-one disputes the temperature has climbed ever since we came out of the LIA and showing the last 16 years embedded inside the last 160 years hides the plateau
At the time, 1998 was a record high year in both the CRU (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/) and the NASA GISS (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/) analysis. In fact, it was not just a record year, it blew away the previous record by .2 C. (That previous record went all the way back to 1997, by the way!) According to NASA (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html), it was elevated far above the trend line because 1998 was the year of the strongest El Nino of the century. Any scientist in pretty much any field knows that you can't extract any meaningful information about trends in noisy data from single-year end points. Very convenient year to cherry pick - all figures look downhill or flat from there, as you can see by the graph spike, then it drops off, but then starts to climb again.

Locally, this year is shaping up to be a very cool one. One of the coldest octobers on record already. (only 83 years of data available). Locally for me is Alexandra, what is locally for you? Oh, and I get my local data from http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/. Where are you getting your data from?
Local for me currently, is South West Australia.

CO2 is not pollution it's one of the fundamental building blocks of life. Plants love elevated levels of CO2. Milder temperatures, higher levels of CO2 and the biosphere blooms... it's going to be great! Up to a point! Then, like all things going out of range, it becomes deadly to life on earth as we know it. But, we won't be here, so, party up like there's no tomorrow........

schrodingers cat

20th October 2012, 06:11

http://gallery.mailchimp.com/20dc9be01946aff7364f31092/images/politicized_science.pnghttp://gallery.mailchimp.com/20dc9be01946aff7364f31092/images/politicized_science.png

10 Characters

Road kill

20th October 2012, 07:59

I'll worry about it tomorrow.:apint:

James Deuce

20th October 2012, 08:04

Still waiting for this morning's frost to clear.

Ocean1

20th October 2012, 09:08

That argument doesn't fly. Coke strips paint, cleans coins, dissolves bones etc, Carbonated water does not! in-fact it does shit all of nothing. Hell not even cokes main competition Pepsi does anywhere as much damage as Coke manages.

No, he's right. Carbon and water in certain conditions combine to make carbonic acid. It's the cause of acid rain. It's also a reaction that's part of a natural cycle which, as far as research has gone hasn't changed since the industrial revolution.

george formby

20th October 2012, 09:15

That argument doesn't fly. Coke strips paint, cleans coins, dissolves bones etc, Carbonated water does not! in-fact it does shit all of nothing. Hell not even cokes main competition Pepsi does anywhere as much damage as Coke manages.

Coke dissolves because of THIS (http://blog.fooducate.com/2009/06/30/11-quick-facts-about-phosphoric-acid-yes-that-chemical-in-coca-cola/). Used to use it to dissolve mineral build up in my pool pump.

Jantar

20th October 2012, 14:27

.....not disputed - the data is in but that chart is all that was to hand
........

The raw data is available on the CRU website and you can use any tool you like to show a graph of it. Excel works fine, but to make a pic of the graph I use wood for trees. I gave a link to this chart in a previous post, but here it is anyway.

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g7/jantarml/to_2012.jpg

As for choosing 1997 as a start point, that isn't cheery picking. The start point is right now, and we work back the period of time required for the plateau to be significant. The IPCC claimed it was at least 15 years for a trend to be significant; Santer claimed 17 years (we are almost there); Jones said more than 15 - 16 years (we are right at that point now); How many years do you wish to see?

huff3r

21st October 2012, 09:07

Akzle

21st October 2012, 09:58

I hardly think it's fair to compare global trends over several decades, considering the quality and quantity of temperature measurement systems has increased so much.

In 1840 could they accurately measure 0.1 of a degree? Or even 1 degree? I don't think so. The Earths history is full of hots and colds, so what if it's warming up?

Does the Human Race have to bloody meddle in everything? Try and control the temperature, the size of the ocean, the movement of the continents? Are we gonna try cool down the sun next to prevent the inevitable supernova? :yawn:

dude. and you live in hamilton.. you must be godlike down there...
((although i reckon turning the sun down a bit is a f*ing good idea - i reckon we should have pumped all or CO2 out of the 'sphere into the sun - hit the "global warming problem" from two angles.))

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/the_universal_label.png

DEATH_INC.

21st October 2012, 12:53

Are we gonna try cool down the sun next to prevent the inevitable supernova? :yawn:

Shuddup FFS, they'll start taxing us to pay for the study to decide how much tax we gotta pay for it!

puddytat

21st October 2012, 13:10

James Deuce

21st October 2012, 14:07

So...if there is a rise in Global CO2 because of one thing OR the other thing, has there been a fall in Global oxygen levels due to man made deforestation/increased burning of plant matter & industrialisation? :scratch: Phytoplankton provides 50% of our oxygen requirements. Interestingly fish stocks of cod and haddock are dropping fast because of a reduction in species diversity for zooplankton. Their niche is being filled by super-plankton who can travel a such speeds that their traditional predators are left standing. 50 body lengths per second which equates to humans moving at 2000 mph.

Akzle

21st October 2012, 16:35

So...if there is a rise in Global CO2 because of one thing OR the other thing, has there been a fall in Global oxygen levels due to man made deforestation/increased burning of plant matter & industrialisation? :scratch:

nono. :nono:
there is exactly as much stuff on the planet as there has ever been. some gey called einstine or something, energy and matter cannot be created or destoyed... asides from that, the planet emits more CO2 than people ever have (combined), the planet is made of oil, and humans don't matter a fuck,
but, hopefully, oneday, they make it too uncomfortable for their own habitation, and either a) fuckoff, or b) die.

.but i'm not holding my breath, acause that isn't profitable

James Deuce

21st October 2012, 16:42

Well, yes, the Mid-Atlantic trench emits more CO2 than all life has, ever, in a year. I think the issue is that atmospheric balances are just that and liberating previously trapped CO2 is the issue under discussion. Humans do it in ways that are subtle and obvious.

Ocean1

21st October 2012, 16:48

I think the issue is that atmospheric balances are just that and liberating previously trapped CO2 is the issue under discussion.

Yup, if this planet wasn't a very very deep negative feedback system it wouldn't have existed as such a complex entity in the first place let alone lasted as long as it has. There's very little we could do that might represent a variable anywhere near as large as those the system's already absorbed and compensated for some time in the past.

DEATH_INC.

21st October 2012, 17:30

FFS humans don't know everything. We like to think we do. All these figures are based on very recent history, or what we think we know from studying soil and fossils and rocks and stuff, which in reality we are just guessing whether of not that stuff means anything. The earth has been around a bloody long time, and it's been f*cking hot, and f*cking cold more than once. We have no idea how these changes affect the air content, the ozone layer, the friggen plankton or anything else for that matter. This ball of dirt and rocks etc we live on wobbles around a big ball of burning gas, neither of which are stable. Of course the climate changes. Give me a couple of million years of solid data and MAYBE we can see if we are in fact making a difference....

mashman

21st October 2012, 17:56

Where once trees ran from coast to coast on every continent (probably) and a fire would have burned unabated from coast to coast, such a thing can never happen again in many of these country's. Where once the trees grew back, we paved paradise and put up a parking lot (amongst other things according to Joni). What's the affect of that given that it has never happened on this planet before? Answer: Who gives a fuck, that attitude doesn't make any money. Trends analysis my hairy white fat arse.

Akzle

21st October 2012, 18:27

i'm always skeptical when people say humans know shit cos they dug shit up.
a'cause of my cousin rangi... down the line.

so happened that a few years back the english excavated to a depth of 30 feet, finding copper wire. from this they obviously deduced that 100 years ago, they had a working telephone network.
not to be outdone, the yanks dug to 60 feet, also finding copper wire, and reckoned they had a telephone network 200 years ago.
well, rangi being rangi, heard all this, dug 90 feet, didn't find shit, and decided that rotorua had infact gone wireless 300 years ago.

Ocean1

21st October 2012, 18:43

Where once trees ran from coast to coast on every continent

You mean like Australia?

Or like America? Where there's more trees now than there was 200 years ago?

Where once the trees grew back, we paved paradise and put up a parking lot (amongst other things according to Joni). What's the affect of that given that it has never happened on this planet before? Answer: Who gives a fuck, that attitude doesn't make any money. Trends analysis my hairy white fat arse.

That's #1 for roundup, mate.

Now go find a big thick book to read, you might run across a fact or two to beef up your prejudices, eh?

Aaaannd you won't have to get off'n your hairy fat arse to do anything about it, fuk'n winner.

mashman

21st October 2012, 18:56

You mean like Australia?

Or like America? Where there's more trees now than there was 200 years ago?

Yes.

Did someone count them?

That's #1 for roundup, mate.

Now go find a big thick book to read, you might run across a fact or two to beef up your prejudices, eh?

Aaaannd you won't have to get off'n your hairy fat arse to do anything about it, fuk'n winner.

Agent Orange FTW.

I see enough thick in here... fuck knows why I'd want to read about it too... let alone digest it as fact and use it to highlight someone else's prejudice.

Ahhhh the internetz. So different to books.

carbonhed

21st October 2012, 19:11

Yes.

Did someone count them?

Agent Orange FTW.

I see enough thick in here... fuck knows why I'd want to read about it too... let alone digest it as fact and use it to highlight someone else's prejudice.

Ahhhh the internetz. So different to books.

Mate! Somebody's written an entire book on your psychosis.

http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/scorning_the_propaganda_of_fear_35NPhGM05z5vuBNPRH VobI

Ocean1

21st October 2012, 19:12

Did someone count them?

Yes.

There hasn't been wall to wall forest in Australia since the Miocene. Wasn't much agent orange about when it all vanished though.

And believe it or not American reforestation is a topic you'll find in t'interwebs as well as in books. A brief scroll/flick would have told you it's a 100% human driven phenomena.

I see enough thick in here... fuck knows why I'd want to read about it too... let alone digest it as fact and use it to highlight someone else's prejudice.

Yeah. Totally beneath you.

mashman

21st October 2012, 19:16

Mate! Somebody's written an entire book on your psychosis.

http://www.afr.com/p/lifestyle/review/scorning_the_propaganda_of_fear_35NPhGM05z5vuBNPRH VobI

:rofl: thanks for that, that made my day... and I've had a damned good day too. Ok, I take it all back, we're doing nothing to our waterways or coastal regions and the shit we pump into the atmosphere and wee monoculture plantations have absolutely no affect on any eco systems. Psychosis :killingme. If you had a clue I'd be disappointed... but fortunately for you, you only have an opinion.

mashman

21st October 2012, 19:22

Yes.

There hasn't been wall to wall forest in Australia since the Miocene. Wasn't much agent orange about when it all vanished though.

And believe it or not American reforestation is a topic you'll find in t'interwebs as well as in books. A brief scroll/flick would have told you it's a 100% human driven phenomena.

Yeah. Totally beneath you.

:rofl:... they all look the same to me.

Possibly.

Fair enough, but I would have thought that they'd have chopped down more than 3 millions trees in the last 30 years, but fair enough and good on them. I guess destroying forest elsewhere makes up for it.

Liar.

DEATH_INC.

21st October 2012, 21:12

Soooo...does that mean the dinos f*cked themselves up by eating trees and farting?

bogan

21st October 2012, 21:17

Soooo...does that mean the dinos f*cked themselves up by eating trees and farting?

Well I wouldn't rule it out, but there's a new theory which is probably more likely :innocent:

<img src="http://www.explosm.net/db/files/Comics/Matt/How-the-dinosaurs-died.gif" />

Ocean1

21st October 2012, 21:19

Soooo...does that mean the dinos f*cked themselves up by eating trees and farting?

Probably.

Took them best part of 10 million years too, and we'll manage it in a couple of hundred.

Apparently.

SPman

21st October 2012, 23:38

Well, yes, the Mid-Atlantic trench emits more CO2 than all life has, ever, in a year...Well - assuming you regaRD THE MID ATLANTIC TRECH AS SUBMARINE VOLCANIS ACTIVITY.......
There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions. - Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).
The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year- US Geological Service

jonbuoy

22nd October 2012, 05:39

Is anyone here remotely qualified to talk about this or a real genuine scientist? Or is it just regurgitating facts from google to support whichever side of the argument your on?

bogan

22nd October 2012, 07:52

Is anyone here remotely qualified to talk about this or a real genuine scientist? Or is it just regurgitating facts from google to support whichever side of the argument your on?

And what is it exactly you think 'real genuine scientists' do?

They do the research, then publish it in a transparent manner so others can use it in their research.

mashman

22nd October 2012, 08:07

Is anyone here remotely qualified to talk about this or a real genuine scientist? Or is it just regurgitating facts from google to support whichever side of the argument your on?

That's the thing though innit. The scientists can't agree and they're using the collected data. We're just playing which side of the argument is more likely... as well as deciding the level of delusion/motivation for the side that someone with an opposing view has chosen. Gets us nowhere, but it's fuckin funny.

Woodman

22nd October 2012, 08:37

Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things?

We are the only ones who think we are significant enough for it to matter. Just another phase in the history of the planet. Too clever for our own good.

BMWST?

22nd October 2012, 08:46

we dont really know id its a linear process any way so to argue that the plateau invalidates the argument is also pointless

Jantar

22nd October 2012, 08:52

Is anyone here remotely qualified to talk about this or a real genuine scientist? Or is it just regurgitating facts from google to support whichever side of the argument your on?

That depends on how you base your idea of qualified. Even scientists themselves can't agree on that one.

A paper titled "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" (Doran, P. T. and M. K. Zimmerman, 2009 ) carried out a simple survey of Earth Scientists who believe the earth is warming. There were only two questions:

"When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”
“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

Such simple questions with a lot that is implied. I know quite a few earth scientists (it is the field I am currently studying for my PhD in climatology/hydrology) and I don't know any could honestly answer "NO" to the first one. Similarly, I know of very few who could answer "NO" to the second. However the authors of this paper did not get the results they wanted.

They sent out the survey to 10,257 earth scientists who had published papers related to the earths temperature, and received 3146 replies. However the authors determined that anyone whose qualification was in meteorology, hydrology, oceanography, geology, mathematic or physics was not qualified to answer. They reduced the sample set that they accepted down to 77 scientists. Of those 75 answered "YES" to both questions. They therefore touted that an overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus. They do not say what the scientists they excluded thought, but I would expect the number to be around the same.

However back to your point, if 3071 out of 3146 scientists who have had papers published on Global Warming are not qualified to answer a simple survey, then what qualifications would you consider neccessay for someone to be considered qualified to comment on a bikers' forum?

Oh, I have had one paper published on the subject, another currently in preparation, and numerous confidential papers presented to my employer including a major one currently in prepararion.

Scuba_Steve

22nd October 2012, 09:04

Is anyone here remotely qualified to talk about this or a real genuine scientist? Or is it just regurgitating facts from google to support whichever side of the argument your on?

I'm a part time "genuine scientist"

And what is it exactly you think 'real genuine scientists' do?

They do the research, then publish it in a transparent manner so others can use it in their research.

That's what they should do yes, what they do however is not so transparent.

That's the thing though innit. The scientists can't agree and they're using the collected data. We're just playing which side of the argument is more likely... as well as deciding the level of delusion/motivation for the side that someone with an opposing view has chosen. Gets us nowhere, but it's fuckin funny.

^ thats bout it in a nutshell :yes:

mashman

22nd October 2012, 09:12

whatever :shifty:

Out of curiosity. What would it take to push the argument in one direction or another? If that's at all possible. I'm assuming that you've all contemplated that at some point? Frinstance, would halting the production of unnecessary anthropogenic co2 emissions for 15/16 years tilt the scales enough for science to have a clearer idea of our affect?

Jantar

22nd October 2012, 09:30

Out of curiosity. What would it take to push the argument in one direction or another? If that's at all possible. I'm assuming that you've all contemplated that at some point? Frinstance, would halting the production of unnecessary anthropogenic co2 emissions for 15/16 years tilt the scales enough for science to have a clearer idea of our affect?

15 - 16 years without any anthropogenic co2 emissions would not make any measurable difference in temperature trends unless we can first identify and confirm all causes of natural climate variability and measure, that is measure not model, the climate changes due to these natural causes. Only once that is done can we say for certain how much of an effect, if any, anthropogenic co2 is having on our climate.

In 16 years the CO2 concentration measure at Moana Loa has incresed from 363 ppm to 391 ppm. The IPCC models suggest that as a result the glopbal temperature should have increased by 0.6 C (+/- 0.2C). However there has been no measurable warming over that period. That means there are 3 possible conclusions.

1. Anthropogenic CO2 has no effect. I don't know any scientists who would agree with that.
2. The anthropogenic CO2 effect is masked by equal and opposite natural causes (negative feedback). This is a commonly held view.
3. Natural variability greatly outweighs any anthropogenic effect. This is also a commonly held view.

The 4th hypothesis that anthropogenic co2 emissions will cause runaway temperature increases due to positive feedbacks is now falsified.

Edit: CO2 data available at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

oldrider

22nd October 2012, 10:00

Every man and his dog has an opinion on this subject it seems and they are all different http://blog.imva.info/world-affairs/global-cooling-good-news/

If we live long enough I guess we will find out the truth, if not ...... ! :whocares:

mashman

22nd October 2012, 10:40

15 - 16 years without any anthropogenic co2 emissions would not make any measurable difference in temperature trends unless we can first identify and confirm all causes of natural climate variability and measure, that is measure not model, the climate changes due to these natural causes. Only once that is done can we say for certain how much of an effect, if any, anthropogenic co2 is having on our climate.

In 16 years the CO2 concentration measure at Moana Loa has incresed from 363 ppm to 391 ppm. The IPCC models suggest that as a result the glopbal temperature should have increased by 0.6 C (+/- 0.2C). However there has been no measurable warming over that period. That means there are 3 possible conclusions.

1. Anthropogenic CO2 has no effect. I don't know any scientists who would agree with that.
2. The anthropogenic CO2 effect is masked by equal and opposite natural causes (negative feedback). This is a commonly held view.
3. Natural variability greatly outweighs any anthropogenic effect. This is also a commonly held view.

The 4th hypothesis that anthropogenic co2 emissions will cause runaway temperature increases due to positive feedbacks is now falsified.

Edit: CO2 data available at ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt

If you have measurements from around the globe, why would removing 1 "cause" not make a measureable difference? What's the reasoning behind that hypothesis? I understand why you'd need to be able to identify every source for the emission that you're going to track, but if the post put forward by SPMan (from the US Geological Service) is a bone of contention in regard to AGW (which there certainly looks to be, given that there's 2 very different sides of that fence), wouldn't there be an obvious fall in ppm (by removing the anthropogenic element by virtue of stopping the production (yes, pie in the sky)) worldwide given their position? This would at least dis/prove the perspective of the volcanologists and potentially highlight the validity of the IPCC model? Instead of adding more variables, why not remove the supposed big one that we control/produce in order to aid the climate scientists in finding a "purer" start point for their research? I do realise that it is not that simple by any stretch of the imagination... but surely given the question of AGW affects, it could potentially clear things up?

In regards to Moana Loa, interesting "trend" given that it's an island in the middle of the ocean.

Ocean1

22nd October 2012, 11:14

Is anyone here remotely qualified to talk about this or a real genuine scientist? Or is it just regurgitating facts from google to support whichever side of the argument your on?

Interesting that you see professional experts as exclusively qualified to hold opinions on topics within their field. Do experts tend to hold similar beliefs because they’re uniquely acquainted with the facts, or are they just behaving like other human sub-tribes?

There's evidence that academic processes discourage independent analysis of data. There’s also evidence that acceptance into a group of expert professionals becomes dependant on certain commonly held beliefs. Not really the picture of an ideal observer, let alone one who’s opinion you’d trust without at least some analysis of your own.

But then, you’re human, you’re subject to all of the same hard-wired decision making systems they are. Like your natural tendency to agree with authority, not to mention the more subtle behavioural weirdness like the Dunning - Kruger effect, now that I come to think about it.

I guess we can’t all become experts in every field, can we? Should we?

Jantar

22nd October 2012, 11:30

If you have measurements from around the globe, why would removing 1 "cause" not make a measureable difference? What's the reasoning behind that hypothesis?

Removing any single cause would make a difference, but would that difference be measurable? What cause was removed over the past 15 - 16 years? If we removed anthropogenic CO2 would that unknown cause return and confound the results?

I understand why you'd need to be able to identify every source for the emission that you're going to track, but if the post put forward by SPMan (from the US Geological Service) is a bone of contention in regard to AGW (which there certainly looks to be, given that there's 2 very different sides of that fence), wouldn't there be an obvious fall in ppm (by removing the anthropogenic element by virtue of stopping the production (yes, pie in the sky)) worldwide given their position? This would at least dis/prove the perspective of the volcanologists and potentially highlight the validity of the IPCC model?

If no further antropogenic CO2 was added to the atmosphere would CO2 concentrations level out or even drop? I don't think so. Man is adding around 5% CO2 and that is way more than is coming from volcanos. But the biggest source of CO2 is outgassing from the oceans (so much for CO2 causing ocean acidification). Warmer water holds less CO2, and this is why CO2 concentrations follow changes in temperature, rather than leads them.

In regards to Moana Loa, interesting "trend" given that it's an island in the middle of the ocean.

Not really, as the oceans are the main source of CO2 it is not at all suprising.

mashman

22nd October 2012, 13:39

Removing any single cause would make a difference, but would that difference be measurable? What cause was removed over the past 15 - 16 years? If we removed anthropogenic CO2 would that unknown cause return and confound the results?

All good things to know the answer to or at the very least attempt to find out. Isn't that the point of the research?

If no further antropogenic CO2 was added to the atmosphere would CO2 concentrations level out or even drop? I don't think so. Man is adding around 5% CO2 and that is way more than is coming from volcanos. But the biggest source of CO2 is outgassing from the oceans (so much for CO2 causing ocean acidification). Warmer water holds less CO2, and this is why CO2 concentrations follow changes in temperature, rather than leads them.

I suppose the only question to ask is, is there a tipping point that triggers the outgassing? There "must" be some form saturation point for the oceans in order for them to start spitting out CO2? or is it temperature related only?

Not really, as the oceans are the main source of CO2 it is not at all suprising.

:facepalm: I has shame.

Jantar

22nd October 2012, 15:14

All good things to know the answer to or at the very least attempt to find out. Isn't that the point of the research?

Absolutely. But when analysing any results of research it is important to recognise the confounding influences and to account for them. If the accounting results in an error range that is greater than the portion you are attempting to isolate then the results are meaningless and no conclusions can be drawn.

I suppose the only question to ask is, is there a tipping point that triggers the outgassing? There "must" be some form saturation point for the oceans in order for them to start spitting out CO2? or is it temperature related only?

There is a saturation point at which no further CO2 can be absorbed, but we are nowhere near that level. The oceans are in a state of equilibrium where they absorb CO2 and release CO2. These rates are temperature dependent (High school level chemistry). As far as a tipping point at which all CO2 will be released - from memory its 100 C for fresh water, and around 103 C for sea water.

SPman

22nd October 2012, 15:19

Anyway - bugger the CO2 - consider the Methane Clathrates in the Arctic submarine permafrost - if they start large scale melting (there is already some low level release going on) - then we'll see some real "atmospheric pollution of the warming kind", that'll make CO2 emissions seem like an amusing sideshow....assuming most current theories are correct. Sea warming, if it continues, won't affect the clathrates under sea floor sediments for centuries.

Warmer water holds less CO2, and this is why CO2 concentrations follow changes in temperature, rather than leads them.It's sort of a "chicken or the egg" scenario in some respects - knowing the factors that alter the balancing point one way or the other - it could be said that an initial burst of anthropogenic warming on a small scale could warm the oceans slightly - enough for them to dump some CO2, which then reinforces the warming cycle, and so on......or not.....
In many ways it's a shame that processes like this become personally politicised and the real value of the combined research and findings becomes swallowed, as it often does, in a morass of ego driven, self serving, counter productive, opportunistic power struggles, which does little to address the issues, real or imagined, and often ends up being of real harm to human society as a whole.

Is anyone here remotely qualified to talk about this or a real genuine scientist? Or is it just regurgitating facts from google to support whichever side of the argument your on? See Jantar's post - and others. "Qualification" to talk about a subject would probably quash 95% of all discourse on Earth. Personally...most of a Geology degree with an interest in Paleogeography, tectonic shifts and general paleontology and 40+ yrs of general interest in Earth Sciences and structures - reading everything available about the subjects from a wide range of opinions does tend to lead one to develop opinions, hopefully based on fact! As usual, those opinions can only be based on the quality of the facts available - and that's where, as amongst all "real genuine scientists", as amongst most "real genuine people", opinions can and do, start to diverge. I guess it then becomes the "I see your graph, and raise you a table, a list and a counter- graph.....:rolleyes:

Of course, that still leaves those, (not just on the "global warming debate"), to whom facts are an inconvenient nuisance, to be discarded, smothered or distorted to suit their own strident mouthings.
Then - you have to follow the money ........

mashman

22nd October 2012, 17:37

Absolutely. But when analysing any results of research it is important to recognise the confounding influences and to account for them. If the accounting results in an error range that is greater than the portion you are attempting to isolate then the results are meaningless and no conclusions can be drawn.

I agree. I guess I'm coming from the position of, AGW does it exist or not, and to finally have the scientific community agreeing without "argument". Then pedantic folk like me will have a larger degree of trust in science and to a degree the "argument" over whether to reduce emissions in response to AGW (I'd love to say would) could be addressed by all. I believe that that is what us members of the public would like to see from the scientific community, therefore allowing the pressure groups to turn up the heat on the decision makers with some form of certainty. After all, the subject affects everyone in one way or another. I have no doubt it's even more frustrating for those in the know.

There is a saturation point at which no further CO2 can be absorbed, but we are nowhere near that level. The oceans are in a state of equilibrium where they absorb CO2 and release CO2. These rates are temperature dependent (High school level chemistry). As far as a tipping point at which all CO2 will be released - from memory its 100 C for fresh water, and around 103 C for sea water.

:laugh:@tipping point (I didn't do chemistry). I guess ocean equilibrium is a can of worms given the way we use it and the possible affects our actions have on CO2 (amongst other things) retention.

Akzle

22nd October 2012, 17:47

I guess we can’t all become experts in every field, can we? Should we?

you can, but you'd have to start posting in green... :D

jonbuoy

22nd October 2012, 18:06

bogan

22nd October 2012, 18:10

I think I'll go to one with some real qualifications

You know, if only there was something that made finding those sort of people easy...

Sure we can all do some doctor google diagnosis

Oh right, yes, that! Such articles found there might even be a good base with which to have a discussion :msn-wink:

Jantar

22nd October 2012, 18:59

puddytat

22nd October 2012, 19:00

So that was a no then? .

Yeah, was it?

or more of a yeah-nah yeah nah...

All the modern things
like cars & such
Have always existed
they've just been waiting in a mountain
for the right moment
listening to the irritating noises
of Dinosaurs & People
dabbling outside
All the modern things
have always existed
they've just been waiting
to come out
and multiply
and takeover.

Bjork.

jonbuoy

22nd October 2012, 19:07

So what real qualifications do you require?

If anyone here was A climatologist or paleoclimatologist that would be a good start, some form of atmospheric scientist? Oceanologist?

Jantar

22nd October 2012, 19:14

If anyone here was A climatologist or paleoclimatologist that would be a good start, some form of atmospheric scientist? Oceanologist?

Mmm. Maybe you should go back and read post #68.

My current research is on climate variabilty with reference to Clutha flow extremes.

jonbuoy

22nd October 2012, 19:17

Mmm. Maybe you should go back and read post #68.

My current research is on climate variabilty with reference to Clutha flow extremes.

So your almost a climatologist?

Jantar

22nd October 2012, 19:22

So your almost a climatologist?

On the cusp of climatology and hydrology. Hydrology would be my main focus if it wasn't for the fact that water comes from the sky in the form of precipitation, and preciptation relies on the climate.

SPman

23rd October 2012, 01:35

Winston001

23rd October 2012, 12:40

So that was a no then? Sure we can all do some doctor google diagnosis and amateur surgery but I think I'll go to one with some real qualifications. I think your a bit deluded if you think having an interest and a reading a few Internet publications makes you an expert.

None of us need to be climatologists to hold a valid point of view. All that's required is to read the information provided by scientists and filter that through our own critical thinking.

For example, some of the scientists who argue against climate change and/or AGW are not climatologists. They may be meterologists or physicists, very clever in their field, but not experts on climate. Their views must be taken with a grain of salt.

I have friends who are scientists (including one who researches the southern ocean) and all of them are convinced that mankind is having an effect on the environment. Whether that leads to warming however is still an open question.

Scientists argue and scrap all the time - its their nature to question everything. That is why we are getting conflicting data because as we learn more, mistakes and errors are detected. That is healthy. Nevertheless the planet is experiencing extreme weather events and that is completely consistant with climate change. More energy in the atmosphere = dynamic weather outside the norm.