Global warming?

[mashman]

Just to keep you thinking

FFS Now talking about geo engineering 10 decades of aerosols into the atmosphere

Popped up on FB here http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/04...-consequences/

Nice find... all lies, but nice find.

[bogan]

I blame NASA, all those rockets and shit poking holes in the ozone layer.

Nah mate, defo a case of 'thanks obama' He simply needed to give NASA the resources to go to pluto and bring back the mad ice cubes to cool us off, and what did he do instead? went back in time and gave t'rists box cutters.

[SPman]

There is a new paper just published that drops the trend of the New Zealand temperature record (NZTR) to 0.28C per century, down from ~0.9C per century.

This is quite possible in a more local scenario. However, there are also scenarios like this

warming in parts of northern Alaska was up to 3°C from the early 1980s to the mid-2000s. It also concludes that about two-thirds of the last century’s global temperature increase has occurred since 1980.
But Barrow’s long-term temperature rise has not been uniform, the Fairbanks study says. Its analysis of weather records between 1921 and 2012 shows a much more modest average annual rise, of 1.51°C. In 2014, the city experienced the coolest summer day recorded − 14.5°C.

http://www.climatenewsnetwork.net/ic...tures-soaring/

I guess this could be seen to sum it up

So one conclusion is to remember just how complex a system the climate is − and how even 34 years may be too short a time to allow for any certainty.

but the certainty is certainly tending to point in one direction. It's getting warmer folks, and, even if we stopped all crap being pumped into the atmosphere tomorrow, it'll keep on warming, once the deep oceans stop taking any more heat.

http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

http://www.climateoutcome.kiwi.nz/temperature.html

[Swoop]

all those rockets and shit poking holes in the ozone layer.

Sadly, wrong.
My conclusive, scientifically proven* data finds that the hole in the ozone layer was caused by '80s fashions and all of the hairspray product used by "hair bands" and their fans.



* I asked a bloke at the pub. Nobody else refuted what he said.

I'm sure someone wearing a tin-foil hat from the CNI will be along soon with another conspiracy theory about it though...

[unstuck]

[QUOTE=Swoop;1130788698 was caused by '80s fashions and all of the hairspray product used by "hair bands" and their fans.



[/QUOTE]

Yeah, what was up with that shit.

[carbonhed]

This is quite possible in a more local scenario.

You're entirely missing the significance of this re analysis. The original work was done by one guy, Jim Salinger, as part of his PhD, he managed to milk the data until it provided double the predicted rate of warming expected by the IPCC, despite the fact that we're surrounded by oceans which should have ameliorated the effect of any warming. When called on to provide his methodology and data he claimed that a dog had eaten his homework.

Jim Salinger was fired from NIWA because he's a cock. He's also great buddies with Kevin Trenberth from their time at NZ metservice Kelburn. Kevin Trenberth is the eminense gris behind a big chunk of computer climate modelling.

They're part of a tiny group of guys in a formerly backwater area of science that didn't attract the cream of the crop academically to start with that collectively have cost the world $2 Trillion so far in an utterly futile effort to reduce carbon emissions. They'll be retiring soon and dead in 20. All they have to do is ride it out and hope the shit doesn't hit the fan before they're gone.

Meanwhile it's 17 years and counting with no rise in global atmospheric temperatures at all.

[oldrider]

You're entirely missing the significance of this re analysis. The original work was done by one guy, Jim Salinger, as part of his PhD, he managed to milk the data until it provided double the predicted rate of warming expected by the IPCC, despite the fact that we're surrounded by oceans which should have ameliorated the effect of any warming. When called on to provide his methodology and data he claimed that a dog had eaten his homework.

Jim Salinger was fired from NIWA because he's a cock. He's also great buddies with Kevin Trenberth from their time at NZ metservice Kelburn. Kevin Trenberth is the eminense gris behind a big chunk of computer climate modelling.

They're part of a tiny group of guys in a formerly backwater area of science that didn't attract the cream of the crop academically to start with that collectively have cost the world $2 Trillion so far in an utterly futile effort to reduce carbon emissions. They'll be retiring soon and dead in 20. All they have to do is ride it out and hope the shit doesn't hit the fan before they're gone.

Meanwhile it's 17 years and counting with no rise in global atmospheric temperatures at all.

I keep reading stuff that says we are heading into a mini ice age FFS! .... So many men so many opinions .... at least nature seems to know where it's going!

[unstuck]

. at least nature seems to know where it's going!

And that is why I am not concerned about climate change.

[SPman]

Meanwhile it's 17 years and counting with no rise in global atmospheric temperatures at all.

Bullshit.
Here's a graph that shows statistically what NO change since 1998 should look like if only it had happened - the blue line shows no change.



The temp at the start of the 1998-2014 trend line is not representative of whet we know the worlds temp was, or, if people want to claim it was, then the warming up to that point is way way worse than any actual climatologist ever claimed. However, feel free to pick 1998 as a start then ignore the entirely false basis of that analysis. Over this period, the sun was cooling for a non sunspot cycle., yet the climate kept right on warming

[James Deuce]

Hey look, people are still confusing weather and climate and grossly underestimating the amount of energy required to increase the temperature 0.1C across the entire globe.

It's cold today, climate change is bullshit.

Some scientists have been discredited because their methodology at the very start of an attempt to understand what the fuck is going on was flawed. So therefore, all climate science is hogwash.

Only one thing remains true.

You're all idiots. Me too.

[SPman]

http://link.springer.com/article/10....-9429-z#page-1

Do a bit of digging and.....

I notice that, as usual, you have picked out something doing the rounds on the well known denier blogs.

The paper was rejected by Theoretical and Applied Climatology, before being accepted by a lesser journal, Environmental Modelling and Assessment.
Among many criticisms are that it uses one and two year periods, instead of four year periods – this reduces the statistical significance of the results. It also lacks supplementary material, which would enable others to reproduce results.

The authors are known climate sceptics.

One thing I find very telling is that these blogs always agree with papers that seem to show no change or very slight change, yet they rubbish those that do show change. Considering that almost all papers show climate change is happening, that's quite an achievement.

[Voltaire]

The polar caps are melting due to it getting colder.
I did my bit stopped using R11, R12 and R22, R18 is still ok

[swarfie]

The polar caps are melting due to it getting colder.
I did my bit stopped using R11, R12 and R22, R18 is still ok

Will you stop watching those R22 and R18 porn channels You'll go blinder

[Swoop]

You're entirely missing the significance of this re analysis. The original work was done by one guy, Jim Salinger, as part of his PhD, he managed to milk the data until it provided double the predicted rate of warming expected by the IPCC, despite the fact that we're surrounded by oceans which should have ameliorated the effect of any warming. When called on to provide his methodology and data he claimed that a dog had eaten his homework.

Jim Salinger was fired from NIWA because he's a cock. He's also great buddies with Kevin Trenberth from their time at NZ metservice Kelburn. Kevin Trenberth is the eminense gris behind a big chunk of computer climate modelling.

They're part of a tiny group of guys in a formerly backwater area of science that didn't attract the cream of the crop academically to start with that collectively have cost the world $2 Trillion so far in an utterly futile effort to reduce carbon emissions. They'll be retiring soon and dead in 20. All they have to do is ride it out and hope the shit doesn't hit the fan before they're gone.

Meanwhile it's 17 years and counting with no rise in global atmospheric temperatures at all.

Yup. People who are eager to get on board the "research" gravy train. If a respected body rejects your "findings", just go to another (then another...) journal until the author is found to be better, more intelligent AND have a nicer beard, than Darwin.

[SPman]

Back to the "great worldwide conspiracy among scientists" theory again. There is one huge hole in this denier's nonsense, there is an enormous amount of money around to produce science that counters the current consensus.


So where is the counter science?

That position basically argues that scientists have to study climate science as a weekend hobby for no pay to make their work valid, and any other position means their work is invalid.

The average tenured professor earned about $120,000 last year, and a new hire a bit less than $70,000.


http://arstechnica.com/science/news/...-the-money.ars


they make wages. They perform work and they receive a wage. It's like any other form of scientific field. People make money because its their profession. Why does this money conspiracy only encircle climate science? Why aren't cancer researchers continually berated that they paid for their profession?

And further to the "New Zealand is not getting warmer post: -

http://link.springer.com/article/10....666-014-9429-z

For a start, the Australian, New Zealand and global warming trends are NOT a postulation, but the result of actual temperature MEASUREMENTS. It is NOT just a theory or idea.

Now, as already noted by Mr. Tea, this paper has been doing the rounds of the ideoblogs. Someday perhaps the penny will finally drop and you might actually realise that ideoblogs are the last place one should go to get scientific information. The real mystery is why do you keep thinking that people here actually want to know about the latest ideoblog mutterings?

This latest junk paper that you have linked to is written by well known climate pseudoskeptics.

Chris de Freitas is listed as
an 'expert' by Heartland
http://heartland.org/chris-de-freitas
An 'advisor' of the NZ Climate Science Coalition
And a ICSC Consultant Science Adviser
http://www.climatescienceinternation...article&id=280

Chris de Freitas is a former editor of Climate Research, where he was involved in a controversy surrounding a research article co-authored by Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon. 13 of the authors that had been cited in the paper refuted the interpretation of their work and 3 members of the Climate Research board resigned in protest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_an...as_controversy

Manfred Otto 'Bob' Dedekind is also a member of the NZ Climate Science Coalition. The NZCSC is infamously known for suing the the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), and losing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zea...ence_Coalition

The judge involved in the case "questioned the credentials of Bob Dedekind, a computer modelling and statistical analyst whose "general expertise in basic statistical techniques does not extend to any particular specialised experience of qualifications in the specific field of applying statistical techniques in the field of climate science".
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/climate...niwa-bd-127869

The New Zealand High court ordered that the NZCSC pay costs, but they liquidated the trust, leaving the New Zealand taxpayer holding the can.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post...payers-at-loss

Barry Edward Brill is a retired lawyer, a former National MP, and Chairman of the NZCSC, who was also involved in the NIWA case.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Brill

You couldn't pick a more suspect lot of infamous criminals to write a climate paper could you?

But lets ignore the trio's dubious history shall we. Is there any merit in the paper?

Well no. Apart from it being error ridden, it does not have consilience. That is, other datasets, like sea surface temperature data, does not support their conclusions.

For an in depth review of the data that was used in the paper, see this.

"The key result of the re-analysis is that the NZ-wide warming trend from the “seven-station” series of about 0.9 °C/century is virtually the same in the revised series as in the previous series. In terms of the detail for individual sites, the 100-year trend has increased slightly at some sites, and decreased slightly at some others."

"The spatial pattern in the warming is consistent with changes in sea surface temperature around New Zealand, with greatest warming in the north of the country (Auckland) and least warming (but still significant) in the southeast (Dunedin)."
http://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/niwa.co....-Series_v3.pdf