Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Speaking of statistics, a comparison of decadal trends.... Looks like our "unprecedented" rate of climate change isn't so different than past warm periods
Why would the graph measure "temperature anomalies" instead of temperatures??
Deniers use facts, Alarmist hide them.
So are you saying there wasn't a time in the near past where temps warmed and resemble our increase in modern days??
When will they start talking about cooling? in 5 more years? 20 more years? Or better question... when will they STOP talking about warming? 5 more years? 20 more years?? After the fact?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagogeorge
Speaking of statistics, a comparison of decadal trends.... Looks like our "unprecedented" rate of climate change isn't so different than past warm periods
I think the alarmists are becoming the Deniers. LOL
1. Since they realized there's been no warming recently they called it Climate Change. That's a fact and that's sad.
2. EVERYTHING that happens now is linked to it. WTF. Does that even make sense??? They are ruining the weather and climate from being interesting because that's all we hear now!!!! Enough!
Like this past cold winter they say "see, Climate Change".
It's a pity that many people interested in meteorology systematically ignore the body of scientific knowlegde about the climate change, but it's even more sad when they cherry pick the data that favours their points of view in order to give a misleading approach on the state of the situation -and ultimately to cheat themselves, maybe-.
In this case, the same sh*t as always: taking a short period -we all know global warming is a long term thing- that starts with a warm event (the famous 1997 El Niño) and use the more favorable source to get the desired result: RSS
What if we consider all the measurements available for the period 1997-2014?
We get these trends:
We see huge discrepancies here, but why?
- First of all, the period is short, hence the margin of error is large.
- Second, both RSS and UAH are satellite measurements. They don't just cover the surface but the lower troposphere and get some contamination from part of the upper troposphere. They always somehow exagerate the influence of the ENSO episodes -don't remember why, someone?-, therefore it's perfect to cherry pick!
- GISTEMP ans HADCRUT4-hybrid use satellite information to cover empty areas, such as the Arctic, which get warmed a lot recently, so the trend is more accenctuated than in NOAA and HADCRUT4.
- Once you consider longer periods, all the measurements get closer and, all of them show an obvious warming trend.
This obvious warming trend has been occurring more or less since the end of the little ice age has it not? Have we actually seen an acceleration of global temps in recent decades? Maybe marginally, but as I pointed out above, past warming episodes were in the same ballpark in both degree and length as the current one. So then the argument is, well this current episode is all man made. Ok prove it. How can you separate man induced climate from natural flux?
Quote:
The meme that 97% of climate scientists believe global warming is, well, apparently whatever you want them to believe, is getting really annoying.
Quote:
But I think a more significant statistic — one that doesn’t rely on opinions, but on facts — is that 100% of climate scientists don’t know how much of the warming in the last 50-100 years is natural versus human-caused.
They dance around this issue with weasel words and qualitative language. Because they don’t know. They can say “most†warming is human caused…but how do they know that? They don’t.
The paper is getting plenty of media attention, I’m also getting queries from reporters.
JC assessment
Let’s take a look at the 3 methods they use to fill in missing data, primarily in Africa, Arctic, and Antarctic.
1. Kriging
2. UAH satellite analyses of surface air temperature
3. NCAR NCEP reanalysis
The state that most of the difference in their reconstructed global average comes from the Arctic, so I focus on the Arctic (which is where I have special expertise in any event).
First, Kriging. Kriging across land/ocean/sea ice boundaries makes no physical sense. While the paper cites Rigor et al. (2000) that shows ‘some’ correlation in winter between land and sea ice temps at up to 1000 km, I would expect no correlation in other seasons.
Second, UAH satellite analyses. Not useful at high latitudes in the presence of temperature inversions and not useful over sea ice (which has a very complex spatially varying microwave emission signature). Hopefully John Christy will chime in on this.
Third, re reanalyses in the Arctic. See Fig 1 from this paper, which gives you a sense of the magnitude of grid point errors for one point over an annual cycle. Some potential utility here, but reanalyses are not useful for trends owing to temporal inhomogeneities in the datasets that are assimilated.
So I don’t think Cowtan and Wray’s analysis adds anything to our understanding of the global surface temperature field and the ‘pause.’
Has the sky fallen over New Zealand yet? Are you experiencing a global warming catastrophe? Please let me know so I can drive one less mile in my SUV... :lol:
Catastrophic drought has accelerated over the last 30 years!
Hurricanes are becoming more violent and more numerous... Oops no they haven't
People will starve... Well maybe somewhere but not in the US
Actually, not looking too bad. Just hope production can keep up with population growth
Sea level rise about 8 inches since the 1880's and around 3mm per year in last 20 years. I think most coastal cities will have time to adapt.
This is a great lecture on Co2 levels compared to the Pliocene
And btw, from that video lecture, the professor who is not a denialist by any means (actually and advocate to slow emissions) describes the unknowns of climate change. Here he is stating that feedback processes to get our current climate state to that of the Pliocene could easily take up to 1000 years (or as little as 50 years). We just don't know
As if we can really do that much to change our course anyway....
And who is going to pay for this energy transformation?
Just bring co2 emissions down to 1990 levels (halving them NOT eliminating emissions)best case scenario will cost 45 trillion by 2050 and that's starting now. Worst case scenario costs push the price to 545 trillion...
Quote:
If we take the report's marginal cost estimate of $200 to $500 per ton for mitigating carbon dioxide, then a simple estimate of the full costs from a frozen technology baseline would be an additional $210 to $530 trillion above the $45 trillion cited in the report. Yes, you read that right.
Good luck getting any nation to commit to that. :lol:
China to add new 3 coal power plants per month to 2020
Quote:
China's coal-fired capacity utilization rate was at 58% in 2013 -- the most utilized fuel -- and this is expected to edge up to 59% this year, and to 60% in 2020.
"The reality is that, no other technologies -- wind, solar, gas, hydro and nuclear -- represent a viable alternative for China in the near- or medium-term," the analysts said, emphasizing that all other technologies are dependent on intermittent or limited resources.
I'm not interested in replying to every point here, especially since some of the responses are made and then ignored. But the bolded is irrelevant, and ditto with China and India's actions. The topic is "Scientific Reasons Global Warming isn't Happening". Costs have nothing to do with whether it's happening or not. Nor much to do with weather or a weather forum. Why do you bring it up?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
