Global warming really is happening... (well, duh!)

[Whitey Grandad]

But if it's due to natural variations and we don't have a clue what's around the corner how can we possibly adapt?

 

We have to adapt to the changes and not the fears.

[Polaroid Saint]

Nothing sudden about it...it's what nature does...adapts, it's been adapting ever since this planet has been in existence.

 

It's only you tree hugging alarmist's who are arrogant enough to think you don't need to....That you can some how change the inevitable, that's why I'm laughing at ya'll

 

Ummm. (again).

 

Two issues here; you seem to believe that everyone that agrees mankind has contributed to the most recent rapid change in global climate is a) an alarmist and b) unwilling to adapt. As Bexy said, changing one's habits (eg reducing output of CO2), and adapting to counter negative effects of perceived climate change (eg flood defenses) are not mutually exclusive.

 

Also, you seem to have completely misunderstood how evolution works; no organism has ever 'adapted' in response to a changing environment. Ever. Ever, ever.

What happens is an organism may, by sheer chance, have a mutation that subsequently enables it survive in an altered environment (eg changed climate).

What you're suggesting with the outrageous claim 'Nature Adapts' is right up there with Lamarckism.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[aintforever]

We have to adapt to the changes and not the fears.

 

But what is the point of adapting to what has already happened?

 

If climate change is just down to natural variations then temperatures could go up or down, sea level could go up or down, weather could get milder not more severe - what is the point of adapting when you don't know what you are adapting for? How could you possibly adapt anyway?

 

Accepting man made climate change and choosing to adapt instead of fight it is a valid argument. Saying it doesn't exist but we should adapt is just a bullsh!t point of view.

[Whitey Grandad]

But what is the point of adapting to what has already happened?

 

If climate change is just down to natural variations then temperatures could go up or down, sea level could go up or down, weather could get milder not more severe - what is the point of adapting when you don't know what you are adapting for? How could you possibly adapt anyway?

 

Accepting man made climate change and choosing to adapt instead of fight it is a valid argument. Saying it doesn't exist but we should adapt is just a bullsh!t point of view.

 

Not at all. You adapt to changed circumstances. You have to adapt to what has already happened if your house is getting flooded more frequently, and I'm not saying that the climate doesn't change, just that the natural changes outweigh the influence of man. At present nobody can predict whether our local weather will be drier, wetter, sunnier, stormier so how can anyone prepare?

[Sheaf Saint]

Nothing sudden about it...it's what nature does...adapts, it's been adapting ever since this planet has been in existence.

 

It's only you tree hugging alarmist's who are arrogant enough to think you don't need to....That you can some how change the inevitable, that's why I'm laughing at ya'll

 

I see you completely ignored my previous post then. I think I probably fit into your completely inaccurate stereotype of 'tree-hugging alarmist' so which part of 'a certain degree of adaptation will certainly be required' leads you to believe I am arrogant enough to think otherwise?

 

You also continue to ignore all the evidence which shows we have already affected our environment substantially, and that the ability to change it further is well within the bounds of possibility. If you could provide some counter evidence which reinforces your position then I would be very interested to read it.

[Minty]

and I'm not saying that the climate doesn't change, just that the natural changes outweigh the influence of man. At present nobody can predict whether our local weather will be drier, wetter, sunnier, stormier so how can anyone prepare?

 

Probably all of the above. Did you read the link I sent previously from Skeptical Science? That (again) provides evidence of mans influence to counter your belief, which I entirely understand, and would love to believe myself, but unfortunately can only see evidence to the contrary.

[Minty]

I swear George and GM play tag-team with us, taking it in turns to churn out the inaccurate (and sometimes offensive) stereotypes, and general abusive behaviour.

[aintforever]

Not at all. You adapt to changed circumstances. You have to adapt to what has already happened if your house is getting flooded more frequently, and I'm not saying that the climate doesn't change, just that the natural changes outweigh the influence of man. At present nobody can predict whether our local weather will be drier, wetter, sunnier, stormier so how can anyone prepare?

 

But floods have always happened, why spend billions on flood defences now unless you think it's going to get more frequent or severe?

 

If it's purely down to natural cycles then it is just as likely to be less server weather from now onwards.

[Batman]

But floods have always happened, why spend billions on flood defences now unless you think it's going to get more frequent or severe?

 

If it's purely down to natural cycles then it is just as likely to be less server weather from now onwards.

 

because more and more people live here and more people vote

 

quite obvious really

[Sheaf Saint]

Not at all. You adapt to changed circumstances. You have to adapt to what has already happened if your house is getting flooded more frequently, and I'm not saying that the climate doesn't change, just that the natural changes outweigh the influence of man. At present nobody can predict whether our local weather will be drier, wetter, sunnier, stormier so how can anyone prepare?

 

Sorry but that statement is misleading, as all the available evidence suggests otherwise. By studying ice cores we have ascertained (to a reasonable degree of accuracy) global temperatures for the last 600,000 years, and the current rate of warming, since the dawn of the industrial era, is ten times greater than the average warming rate throughout that period. The Milankovitch-Croll cycles, which are the biggest natural drivers of climate change, don't explain the current rate of warming either.

[aintforever]

because more and more people live here and more people vote

 

quite obvious really

 

But for once in a lifetime events like what happened this winter surely it's more cost effective to just let the insurance deal with it when it happens again in 2097 or whenever?

 

Of course if climate change means it will happen more frequently then it's worth the investment.

[Sheaf Saint]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/feb/25/world-2014-extreme-weather-events?CMP=fb_gu

 

World begins 2014 with unusual number of extreme weather events

UN's World Meteorological Organisation says recent extremes of heat, cold and rain are almost certainly interlinked

 

There have been heatwaves in Slovenia and Australia, snow in Vietnam and the return of the polar vortex to North America. Britain has had its wettest winter in 250 years but temperatures in parts of Russia and the Arctic have been 10C above normal. Meanwhile, the southern hemisphere has had the warmest start to a year ever recorded, with millions of people sweltering in Brazilian and southern African cities.

 

According to the UN's World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), which monitors global weather, the first six weeks of 2014 have seen an unusual number of extremes of heat, cold and rain – not just in a few regions as might be expected in any winter, but right the way around the world at the same time, with costly disruptions to transport, power systems and food production.

 

"Melbourne, Adelaide and Canberra have all had record heatwaves, while temperatures in Moscow were 11C above normal. Germany and Spain were 2C above normal for January and this month has seen so far six major depressions develop over the Atlantic," said the WMO in its latest assessment of world weather.

 

"Both equatorial and polar regions have experienced extremes. There has been unusually heavy snowfall; in the southern Alps, monthly temperatures were extremely high; from eastern Mongolia to eastern China and in the southern hemisphere, Australia, Argentina and Brazil have experienced extended heatwaves. The unusually cold weather in the eastern US coincided with severe storms in Europe," it says.

 

Some climate scientists argue that there is nothing unusual in winter global temperature extremes but Omar Baddour, chief of the WMO data division, says the recent phenomena are almost certainly interlinked, with new computer models suggesting increased evidence of climate change.

 

"We need more time to assess whether this is unusual [on a global level] but if you look at the events in individual regions, like the heatwave in Australia or the cold in the US, it looks very unusual indeed. Next month we will publish a major report showing the likelihood of extreme heatwaves is increased 500% [with climate change]."

 

There is no connection between northern and southern hemisphere phenomenon, says Baddour, but the intense cold and heatwaves in the northern hemisphere appear to be linked by "planetary waves", or giant meanders in high-altitude winds like jet streams.

 

"A low pressure in one part of the world may be linked to a high in another. The two hemispheres are divided by the equator and not connected but, from a global perspective, climate change affects both. The global cause [of the extremes] can be the same," he said.

 

The WMO assessment coincides with exceptionally warm air and water this month in the Arctic. The sea ice, that forms and melts each year, would normally be still growing strongly in mid-February, but has dramatically slowed in the last two weeks and now covers 14.36 million square miles – the lowest extent ever recorded in February.

 

"The Arctic is pretty warm everywhere. If I look at temperature anomalies, there's a huge anomaly over the Barents Sea and Sea of Okhotsk of about 10C (above normal) compared to 1981-2010," said Julienne Stroeve, a senior scientist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre at Boulder, Colorado.

 

"We are living in a time where the climate is changing quite rapidly. There is reason to expect that the changes in the sea ice will have large local effects. Further investigation will improve our knowledge of whether or not the effects of sea ice decline and broader changes in the Arctic have global effects," said leading US meteorologist Jeff Masters.

 

The first two months of 2014 appear to back up last year's UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report report, which stated that the number, frequency and intensity of hot days and heatwaves was increasing, along with an increase in the intensity and number of heavy rainfall events.

 

Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute at the London School of Economics, said the science linking weather extremes to climate change was becoming clearer.

 

"We are seeing the extremes move into new territory. The pattern of extreme weather events that we have seen across the globe over the past 12 months bears the unmistakable fingerprint of climate change, with high temperatures recorded in many parts of the world," he said.

 

"We are also seeing some unusual phenomenon, such as the polar vortex in North America, that is bringing unusually cold weather, which would not be automatically be considered to be due to climate change. However, there is some evidence that such unexpected surprises are also due to global warming."

 

But some climate scientists are cautious about linking extremes to climate change. "Looking for a signal of climate change in short-term weather does not make much scientific sense … There is however evidence for increasing heatwaves and in some measures, increasing precipitation," said Roger Pielke Jr, of the Centre for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado.

 

"Human-caused climate change is real, poses risks and we should take action in terms of both mitigation and adaptation. [but] extreme events are a bad place to look for climate signals."

 

Last year was the sixth warmest on record, according to the WMO.

[Halo Stickman]

What you're suggesting with the outrageous claim 'Nature Adapts' is right up there with Lamarckism.

 

Careful: Lamarckism is making a bit of a comeback in certain quarters.

 

http://machineslikeus.com/news/epigenetics-defense-lamarck

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201312/revolution-in-evolution-return-lamarck

[Polaroid Saint]

Careful: Lamarckism is making a bit of a comeback in certain quarters.

 

http://machineslikeus.com/news/epigenetics-defense-lamarck

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/theory-knowledge/201312/revolution-in-evolution-return-lamarck

 

Great links, nice one. I am aware of, but not overly familiar with, epigenetics so I will enjoy reading more.

 

What little I do know suggests that, as contentious as it sounds, the implied effect of epigenetics is that learnt traits are passed down one or more generations; and this sounds remarkably Lamarckian. I'm not yet convinced it truly follows that these 'adaptations' are dominant, lasting or at truly DNA level (chemical response?).

 

Anyway, good call and hopefully I'll know more in a minute.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Polaroid Saint]

http://machineslikeus.com/news/epigenetics-defense-lamarck

 

 

Interesting stuff, compelling defence of broad lamarckism. I have also bookmarked the website too, looks nicely geeky.

 

Well, I take it all back George! You are right, we can just adapt!

 

A few generations down the line and we will all have webbed feet and gills like Kevin Costner in that film. Or people from p**tsm**th.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Halo Stickman]

Interesting stuff, compelling defence of broad lamarckism. I have also bookmarked the website too, looks nicely geeky.

 

Yep, Polaroid Saint, the relatively new field of epigenetics is something I find particularly fascinating; it’s certainly throwing up a challenge to the more orthodox neo-Darwinism view of the mechanisms of evolution. The idea that an individual can have certain genes switched on or off, or even attenuated, by a chemical reaction (involving hormones etc) to his or her environment, and that these switched-on-or-off genes are then inherited by succeeding generations threatens to drive a horse and carriage through more conventional thinking. Checkout the studies into the Overkalix or Dutch Hunger Winter generation cohorts; or the theory that switched on stressor genes in WWI soldiers etc may be responsible for depression and other illnesses within their grandchildren.

 

Of course, this is all new science and, like all good science, it will stand or fall by a rigorous process of testing and evidence examination. Nevertheless, recent books such as The Epigenetics Revolution by Nessa Carey, Epigenetics in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka, Epigentics: How Environment Shapes Our Genes by Richard Francis, and Identically Different: Why You Can Change Your Genes by Tim Spector have gone some way towards persuading me that there might, after all, be some mileage in Lamarck’s long-ridiculed idea of inheritance of acquired characteristics.

 

At the very least, these books etc have made me think that it’s probably prudent – for the time being anyway – to keep an open mind and not be too dogmatic when it comes to evolutionary mechanisms. Although, in truth, at risk of sounding like a sanctimonious t wat, I find that keeping an open mind and avoiding dogmatism is pretty useful when it comes to most things.

[badgerx16]

We're going a bit off topic here, but following the epigenetics trend - another link to a discussion of identical twins that shows how their DNA, identical at conception, may be varied by external factors :

 

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/twins/

[Polaroid Saint]

All good stuff.

 

That's more where I had been with epigenetics, Badger; I have encountered it a few times in the ol' nature/nurture debate, vital stuff.

 

Thee idea that such changes are then passed on to successive generations has blown my tiny mind a little bit and I will continue to read more. Initially i am sold, although I feel there is still a big responsibly on the mechanics of evolution to select those changes etc.

 

Yeah right. Back on topic: "Solar Panels: is that an adaption in response or in anticipation of climate change? They are a waste of money and they look ugly? Or should we just paint our roofs white?"

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Halo Stickman]

The idea that such changes are then passed on to successive generations has blown my tiny mind a little bit and I will continue to read more.

 

Yep, the thought that our own lives might be affected by the experiences of our ancestors is mind-blowing, and like many others, I have a keen personal interest in such things, especially the possibility that my grandfather’s WWI experiences might be still casting a long black shadow over the lives of his descendants. As is common amongst soldiers, he never talked about his experiences, but, I think it’s true to say, they were very grim; he certainly suffered bouts of clinical depression for the rest of his life, one of which led to his eventual suicide.

 

Sadly, many of his descendants have also suffered from this wretched condition, although, fortunately, not with the same sorry outcome. I’ve long accepted there is a genetic component to many illnesses including clinical depression, but the thought that they may have been triggered by our ancestor’s experiences, whilst not offering much in the way of relief, is, nonetheless, interesting. And, who knows, if it is simply a case of inherited genetic markers, then maybe, one day, people will discover a way to remove the bloody things.

 

From my own family’s point of view, it would be useful to discover whether or not there was a history of clinical depression within my grandfather’s ancestors i.e. before his WWI experiences; but, from such a distance in time, it is virtually impossible to discover whether such an illness existed within generations of 19th century agricultural labourers.

 

Anyway, back on topic, what’s the weather doing tomorrow? Much more of this ****ing rain and I will damn well top myself

[Saint Paul C]

Causes and implications of the growing divergence between climate model simulations and observations

For the past 15+ years, there has been no increase in global average surface temperature, which has been referred to as a ‘hiatus’ in global warming. By contrast, estimates of expected warming in the first several decades of 21st century made by the IPCC AR4 were 0.2C/decade. This talk summarizes the recent CMIP5 climate model simulation results and comparisons with observational data. The most recent climate model simulations used in the AR5 indicate that the warming stagnation since 1998 is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level. Potential causes for the model-observation discrepancies are discussed. A particular focus of the talk is the role of multi-decadal natural internal variability on the climate variability of the 20th and early 21st centuries. The “stadium wave” climate signal is described, which propagates across the Northern Hemisphere through a network of ocean, ice, and atmospheric circulation regimes that self-organize into a collective tempo. The stadium wave hypothesis provides a plausible explanation for the hiatus in warming and helps explain why climate models did not predict this hiatus. Further, the new hypothesis suggests how long the hiatus might last. Implications of the hiatus are discussed in context of climate model sensitivity to CO2 forcing and attribution of the warming that was observed in the last quarter of the 20th century.

Significance of the pause

Under conditions of anthropogenic greenhouse forcing:

• •Only 2% of climate model simulations produce trends within the observational uncertainty

• Modelled pauses longer than 15 years are rare; the probability of a modelled pause exceeding 20 yrs. is vanishing small

Questions raised by the discrepancy

• Are climate models too sensitive to greenhouse forcing?

• Is climate model treatment of natural climate variability inadequate?

• Is the IPCC’s ‘extremely likely’ confidence level regarding anthropogenic attribution since 1950 justified?

• Are climate model projections of 21st century warming too high?

• How confident are we of the observations?

 

I. Where is the missing heat?

Hypothesis I: It MUST be hiding in the ocean

• Evidence of deep ocean sequestration is indirect; few observations of deep ocean temperature prior to 2005

• Ocean models do not transfer heat in the vertically anywhere near as efficiently as inferred from the ECMWF reanalyses

•Concerns about the heat returning to the surface seem unrealizable if the heat is well mixed – 2nd law constraints

 

Hypothesis II: There is NO missing heat; changes in clouds have resulted in more reflection of solar radiation

• Global cloud satellite dataset only goes back to 1983; calibration issues complicate trend analyses

• Global energy balance analyses are associated with significant uncertainties

 

II. Maybe the models are OK, the problem is the external forcing

 

There is significant disagreement among different forcing data sets

CMIP5 simulations were forced by single ‘best estimate’ data sets

There has been no systematic effort to assess uncertainty in these data sets or the sensitivity of climate models to forcing uncertainty

These uncertainties have not been factored into the 20th century attribution assessments

 

III. ENSO (natural internal variability) is masking the greenhouse warming

 

IV. Multidecadal modes of natural internal variability

 

A.Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), etc. are superimposed on the anthropogenic warming trend, and should be included in attribution studies and future projections

B.Climate shifts hypothesis: synchronized chaos framework for natural internal variability (shift ca. 2001)

C.Stadium wave hypothesis: spatio-temporal pattern of signal propagation through a synchronized network of climate indices; quasi-periodic 50-80 yr tempo, with amplitude and tempo modified by external forcing

 

Implications for the future: I. IPCC AR5 view

The hiatus will end soon, with the next El Nino

 

Implications for the future: II. View emphasizing natural internal variability

• The ‘hiatus’ will continue at least another decade

• Climate models are too sensitive to external forcing

• Hiatus persistence beyond 20 years would support a firm declaration of problems with the climate models

• Incorrect accounting for natural internal variability implies:

o Biased attribution of 20th century warming

o Climate models are not useful on decadal time scales

 

Summary of major uncertainties

• Deep ocean heat content variations and mechanisms of vertical heat transfer between the surface and deep ocean

• Uncertainties associated with external forcing data and implications for attribution analysis and future projections

• Sensitivity of the climate system to external forcing

• Clouds: trends, forcing, feedbacks, and aerosol – cloud interactions

• Nature and mechanisms of multidecadal natural ‘internal’ variability

• Unknowns – solar indirect effects, magnetic and electric field effects, orbital (tidal and other) effects, core-mantle interactions, etc.

 

http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/04/causes-and-implications-of-the-pause/

[niceandfriendly]

Was the coldest winter here in Thailand for over 30 years, with temperatures reaching a bitterly cold 20degrees celcius at times. I didn't have any thick clothes to keep me warm, which was difficult, but at least it proved there is no global warming.

[Saint George]

 

 

I. Where is the missing heat?

Hypothesis I: It MUST be hiding in the ocean

• Evidence of deep ocean sequestration is indirect; few observations of deep ocean temperature prior to 2005

• Ocean models do not transfer heat in the vertically anywhere near as efficiently as inferred from the ECMWF reanalyses

•Concerns about the heat returning to the surface seem unrealizable if the heat is well mixed – 2nd law constraints

 

 

This is something that has cracked me up over the last few years and shows just how desperate the alarmist's are to cling onto the dim and gullible's dollar.

 

They are seriously trying explain away the so called 'missing heat' as having somehow defied physics and sunk to the bottom of the 'cold' oceans...and then the 'missing heat' will one day, all of a sudden decide to obey physics and 'rise' to the top again.....

 

Just goes to show how desperate some peeps can get when they are at risk of loosing their multi $$$$$$billion funding. You would have thought they would have least gone out with some dignity.

[Verbal]

This is something that has cracked me up over the last few years and shows just how desperate the alarmist's are to cling onto the dim and gullible's dollar.

 

They are seriously trying explain away the so called 'missing heat' as having somehow defied physics and sunk to the bottom of the 'cold' oceans...and then the 'missing heat' will one day, all of a sudden decide to obey physics and 'rise' to the top again.....

 

Just goes to show how desperate some peeps can get when they are at risk of loosing their multi $$$$$$billion funding. You would have thought they would have least gone out with some dignity.

 

Spoon.

[buctootim]

Poor old not very Curious George.

 

"The year 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013."

 

"Separately, the 2013 global average land surface temperature was 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average of 8.5°C (47.3°F), the fourth highest annual value on record".

 

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

Edited 6 March, 2014 by buctootim

[Polaroid Saint]

This is something that has cracked me up over the last few years and shows just how desperate the alarmist's are to cling onto the dim and gullible's dollar.

 

They are seriously trying explain away the so called 'missing heat' as having somehow defied physics and sunk to the bottom of the 'cold' oceans...and then the 'missing heat' will one day, all of a sudden decide to obey physics and 'rise' to the top again.....

 

Just goes to show how desperate some peeps can get when they are at risk of loosing their multi $$$$$$billion funding. You would have thought they would have least gone out with some dignity.

 

This is one forum contributor that has cracked me up over the last few weeks.

 

" Desperate, Dim and Gullible. "

 

Excellent stuff George; keep up the amusing facade of arrogance and ignorance.

 

 

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

Edited 6 March, 2014 by Polaroid Saint

[Wurzel]

Poor old not very Curious George.

 

"The year 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013."

 

"Separately, the 2013 global average land surface temperature was 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average of 8.5°C (47.3°F), the fourth highest annual value on record".

 

As someone with a very open mind on the subject I can't argue with the point I assume you are making

Based on exactly the same statement I couldn't argue with anyone who pointed out that many of the 97 years previous to 1976 were below average.

Both say the same thing based on the facts given, yet one gives a totally different interpretation than the other.

[buctootim]

As someone with a very open mind on the subject I can't argue with the point I assume you are making

Based on exactly the same statement I couldn't argue with anyone who pointed out that many of the 97 years previous to 1976 were below average.

Both say the same thing based on the facts given, yet one gives a totally different interpretation than the other.

 

They dont really. If you are taking a sample of the past 136 years then of course 50% will be above average and 50% will be below. Its the upward trend of temperatures in the second half of that period and the fact that the trend matches what you would expect to see given rising atmospheric carbon that is significant. I have no problem with people debating the interpretation of the data - but people like George dont even know what the data is, how it was gained or care what it means - because he'll be dead within the next 50 years before the worst effects are felt and doesn't give a stuff.

[Whitey Grandad]

They dont really. If you are taking a sample of the past 136 years then of course 50% will be above average and 50% will be below. Its the upward trend of temperatures in the second half of that period and the fact that the trend matches what you would expect to see given rising atmospheric carbon that is significant. I have no problem with people debating the interpretation of the data - but people like George dont even know what the data is, how it was gained or care what it means - because he'll be dead within the next 50 years before the worst effects are felt and doesn't give a stuff.

 

Isn't that the median and not the average?

[buctootim]

Isn't that the median and not the average?

Yes

[Saint Paul C]

For anyone willing to read further on the modelling issues relating to GW, MMGW, MMCC, CC.. then the link below discusses some of the issues around modelling techniques and climate and possible reasons for model oversensitivity

 

The sensitivity of our climate to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide is at the heart of the scientific debate on anthropogenic climate change, and also the public debate on the appropriate policy response to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Climate sensitivity and estimates of its uncertainty are key inputs into the economic models that drive cost-benefit analyses and estimates of the social cost of carbon.

The complexity and nuances of the issue of climate sensitivity to increasing carbon dioxide are not easily discerned from reading the Summary for Policy Makers of the Assessment Reports undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Further, the more detailed discussion of climate sensitivity in the text of the full Working Group I Reports lacks context or an explanation that is easily understood by anyone not actively reading the published literature.

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/oversensitive-final.pdf

[OldNick]

Poor old not very Curious George.

 

"The year 2013 ties with 2003 as the fourth warmest year globally since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). This marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the yearly global temperature was above average. Currently, the warmest year on record is 2010, which was 0.66°C (1.19°F) above average. Including 2013, 9 of the 10 warmest years in the 134-year period of record have occurred in the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013."

 

"Separately, the 2013 global average land surface temperature was 0.99°C (1.78°F) above the 20th century average of 8.5°C (47.3°F), the fourth highest annual value on record".

 

 

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

it doesn't tell us what the dark grey means, is that colder than usual or just normal?

[Bearsy]

Also, you seem to have completely misunderstood how evolution works; no organism has ever 'adapted' in response to a changing environment. Ever. Ever, ever.

What happens is an organism may, by sheer chance, have a mutation that subsequently enables it survive in an altered environment (eg changed climate).

What you're suggesting with the outrageous claim 'Nature Adapts' is right up there with Lamarckism.

 

in jurassic park all of the dinosaurs was lesbians, but finding themselves in a no-cock environment some of the the lesbian dinosaurs adapted by growing cock+balls so they could make baby dinosaurs

[Goatboy]

in jurassic park all of the dinosaurs was lesbians, but finding themselves in a no-cock environment some of the the lesbian dinosaurs adapted by growing cock+balls so they could make baby dinosaurs

 

I don't think I want lesbians to grow cock and balls. I wouldn't watch that.

[Polaroid Saint]

in jurassic park all of the dinosaurs was lesbians, but finding themselves in a no-cock environment some of the the lesbian dinosaurs adapted by growing cock+balls so they could make baby dinosaurs

 

This is a fair point and only adds further weight to the Climate Change argument.

 

In the olden days finding a Lesbian with a cock n balls was quite tricky and they only really existed in large numbers in remote communities of far east Asia.

 

Then a few years ago they started cropping up in northern European enclaves, but really you only heard about it from the odd kid at school who lived with his uncle.

 

Nowadays they are everywhere and you never quite know until its too late; as anyone who has exhausted their normal supply of lesbian internet porn will attest. The shock and shame is not easily forgotten.

 

Lesbian dinosaurs with cock n balls is one thing but I worry that I have started to grow an extra cock just thinking about it all. Climate Change that is.

 

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

[Guided Missile]

Millions of years ago, in the cradle of humanity, Africa, it was much hotter than today. Humans evolved from from the hairy primates they were, to the only hairless primate on the planet today. Standing upright, away from the hot earth and able to sweat, the new species, homo erectus, was more capable of regulating it's body temperature and could run from danger or catch prey far more effectively:

 

 

As humans evolved, they discovered that, in order to improve the mechanism by which they regulated their body temperature, it was possible to achieve this by wearing clothes. These clothes could protect from large variations in the climate to which they were exposed. Eventually, modern humans became almost completely hairless and relied upon clothing sold by such companies as Marks and Spencers and Next. It revolutionised civilisation and provided the means to protect the human race from the devastating prospect that the average temperatures on earth may increase by 2C over the next century:

 

[Wurzel]

They dont really. If you are taking a sample of the past 136 years then of course 50% will be above average and 50% will be below. Its the upward trend of temperatures in the second half of that period and the fact that the trend matches what you would expect to see given rising atmospheric carbon that is significant. I have no problem with people debating the interpretation of the data - but people like George dont even know what the data is, how it was gained or care what it means - because he'll be dead within the next 50 years before the worst effects are felt and doesn't give a stuff.

 

Isn't that the median and not the average?

 

Yes

 

WG has already made my first point. Just shows how conflicting data can be, you have already misinterpreted "average".

 

I appreciate that thos 37 years "could be considered" a trend, but my point is what is "normal". 134 years over the lifetime of the planet is meaningless. Could it be that those last 37 years are actually the norm and the previous 97 a bit cooler than usual and the last few decades are heading back to "normal" ? . I am assuming the 134 years consist of contemporary temperature recordings, so if the same data can be calculated for earlier than that it will be by using adifferent retrospective methods so can not be relied on to be directly comparable.

I know all I am commenting on is one set of data and there is tons more out there, just trying to make a point that much of it is subject to the reader putting their own interpretation on the results.

 

Its the upward trend of temperatures in the second half of that period and the fact that the trend matches what you would expect to see given rising atmospheric carbon that is significant.

 

Does the upward trend in temperature follow a rise in atmospheric carbon? Or does a rise in atmospheric carbon follow a rise in temperature. ? I've seen data supporting both. Which should I believe?

[benjii]

John Terry has small erection. Lol

[Halo Stickman]

I thought I’d throw a bit of randomness into the mix. Why? – well, why not?

 

Now, I’m not saying that the following applies to the temperatures listed above – they do indeed seem to be trending. However, I often hear people say things such as: 9 of the last 12 years have been the warmest for the last 130 years; therefore, it’s obvious that the trend is upwards. This could very well be the case, but how can we be sure that this isn’t an example of randomly produced clusters? Seems counter intuitive, I agree, but bear with me.

 

Most people who have laid different coloured wall or floor tiles in a random pattern have experienced the counter-intuitive thought that clusters do not occur randomly – those people will probably have avoided laying the same coloured tiles next to each other.

 

When confronted with the following two sequences of coin tosses: HTTHTHHTHT and HHHHHTTTTT most people will be suspicious that the second sequence was randomly generated; but, in reality, both have the same probability of occurring – just as 1 2 3 4 5 and 6 are just as likely as any other 6 numbers to come up on the lottery.

 

If my house is stuck by lightening on average 12 times a year, and I tell you it was struck today (Friday), what is the most likely day for the NEXT bolt to strike: tomorrow, next week, in exactly a month’s time, or some other day? The answer is tomorrow (Saturday). The probability of that happening is about 1 in 30 (once a month), let’s round it to a probability of 0.03. Now, the probability of it happening the next day (Sunday) is also 0.03, but this time you have to multiply that figure by the probability that it hasn’t happened tomorrow (Saturday) (1 minus 0.03 = 0.97) to give an overall probability of 0.03 x 0.97 = 0.0291. For the day after that (Monday) the calculation becomes 0.03 x 0.97 x 0.97 = 0.0282, and so on and so on, making every subsequent day less likely to be the NEXT one when lightening strikes.*

 

Oh, **** it, this is giving me a headache. Let’s just say clusters do happen in randomly generated numbers, and in nature. Just go out and look at the sky tonight – effectively, from our perspective, the positions of the stars in the night sky have been randomly generated. Have the stars got nice even gaps between them, or are there clusters?

 

* I’m sure there are much better mathematicians than me out there who can rip my maths apart: they’re quite welcome to do so.

Edited 7 March, 2014 by Halo Stickman

[buctootim]

I thought I’d throw a bit of randomness into the mix. Why? – well, why not?

 

Now, I’m not saying that the following applies to the temperatures listed above – they do indeed seem to be trending. However, I often hear people say things such as: 9 of the last 12 years have been the warmest for the last 130 years; therefore, it’s obvious that the trend is upwards. This could very well be the case, but how can we be sure that this isn’t an example of randomly produced clusters? Seems counter intuitive, I agree, but bear with me.

 

Most people who have laid different coloured wall or floor tiles in a random pattern have experienced the counter-intuitive thought that clusters do not occur randomly – those people will probably have avoided laying the same coloured tiles next to each other.

 

When confronted with the following two sequences of coin tosses: HTTHTHHTHT and HHHHHTTTTT most people will be suspicious that the second sequence was randomly generated; but, in reality, both have the same probability of occurring – just as 1 2 3 4 5 and 6 are just as likely as any other 6 numbers to come up on the lottery.

 

If my house is stuck by lightening on average 12 times a year, and I tell you it was struck today (Friday), what is the most likely day for the NEXT bolt to strike: tomorrow, next week, in exactly a month’s time, or some other day? The answer is tomorrow (Saturday). The probability of that happening is about 1 in 30 (once a month), let’s round it to a probability of 0.03. Now, the probability of it happening the next day (Sunday) is also 0.03, but this time you have to multiply that figure by the probability that it hasn’t happened tomorrow (Saturday) (1 minus 0.03 = 0.97) to give an overall probability of 0.03 x 0.97 = 0.0291. For the day after that (Monday) the calculation becomes 0.03 x 0.97 x 0.97 = 0.0282, and so on and so on, making every subsequent day less likely to be the NEXT one when lightening strikes.*

 

Oh, **** it, this is giving me a headache. Let’s just say clusters do happen in randomly generated numbers, and in nature. Just go out and look at the sky tonight – effectively, from our perspective, the positions of the stars in the night sky have been randomly generated. Have the stars got nice even gaps between them, or are there clusters?

 

* I’m sure there are much better mathematicians than me out there who can rip my maths apart: they’re quite welcome to do so.

 

The confidence interval for current global warming being caused by humans is 95% - ie if you threw those numbers up in the air there is only a five percent probability they would land the way they have by chance.

[Whitey Grandad]

I thought I’d throw a bit of randomness into the mix. Why? – well, why not?

 

Now, I’m not saying that the following applies to the temperatures listed above – they do indeed seem to be trending. However, I often hear people say things such as: 9 of the last 12 years have been the warmest for the last 130 years; therefore, it’s obvious that the trend is upwards. This could very well be the case, but how can we be sure that this isn’t an example of randomly produced clusters? Seems counter intuitive, I agree, but bear with me.

 

Most people who have laid different coloured wall or floor tiles in a random pattern have experienced the counter-intuitive thought that clusters do not occur randomly – those people will probably have avoided laying the same coloured tiles next to each other.

 

When confronted with the following two sequences of coin tosses: HTTHTHHTHT and HHHHHTTTTT most people will be suspicious that the second sequence was randomly generated; but, in reality, both have the same probability of occurring – just as 1 2 3 4 5 and 6 are just as likely as any other 6 numbers to come up on the lottery.

 

If my house is stuck by lightening on average 12 times a year, and I tell you it was struck today (Friday), what is the most likely day for the NEXT bolt to strike: tomorrow, next week, in exactly a month’s time, or some other day? The answer is tomorrow (Saturday). The probability of that happening is about 1 in 30 (once a month), let’s round it to a probability of 0.03. Now, the probability of it happening the next day (Sunday) is also 0.03, but this time you have to multiply that figure by the probability that it hasn’t happened tomorrow (Saturday) (1 minus 0.03 = 0.97) to give an overall probability of 0.03 x 0.97 = 0.0291. For the day after that (Monday) the calculation becomes 0.03 x 0.97 x 0.97 = 0.0282, and so on and so on, making every subsequent day less likely to be the NEXT one when lightening strikes.*

 

Oh, **** it, this is giving me a headache. Let’s just say clusters do happen in randomly generated numbers, and in nature. Just go out and look at the sky tonight – effectively, from our perspective, the positions of the stars in the night sky have been randomly generated. Have the stars got nice even gaps between them, or are there clusters?

 

* I’m sure there are much better mathematicians than me out there who can rip my maths apart: they’re quite welcome to do so.

 

It's human nature to try to see patterns in randomness, to make some sense out of disorder. Most people think of 'random' as occurring irregularly but evenly but that's not the case, sometimes there are little sequences of continuity. It's my theory that this is what hooks gamblers, they remember the little winning streaks but not the overall numbers.

[buctootim]

WG has already made my first point. Just shows how conflicting data can be, you have already misinterpreted "average".

 

I didnt misinterpret 'average' I used a hastily written illustration of a point and didnt check it when writing on a football forum.

 

I appreciate that thos 37 years "could be considered" a trend, but my point is what is "normal". 134 years over the lifetime of the planet is meaningless. Could it be that those last 37 years are actually the norm and the previous 97 a bit cooler than usual and the last few decades are heading back to "normal" ? . I am assuming the 134 years consist of contemporary temperature recordings, so if the same data can be calculated for earlier than that it will be by using adifferent retrospective methods so can not be relied on to be directly comparable. I know all I am commenting on is one set of data and there is tons more out there, just trying to make a point that much of it is subject to the reader putting their own interpretation on the results.

 

Its a common misunderstanding that because the climate has always changed then there is no such thing as man made climate change. Do you agree different gases have different heat retention properties or is double glazing all an elaborate hoax perpetrated by scientists on research grants? All gases have greater or lesser insulating properties. Gases like argon and krypton trap a lot more heat than air which is why they are used in DG. Sulphur Hexafluoride used to be used in the US as DG gas until it was banned for being a very potent ghg. Carbon dioxide is a relatively weak insulator - but we produce a lot of it and it sticks around for a long time - around 200 years. If we had put as much Sulphur Hexafluoride into the atmosphere as we have carbon we would have fried already.

 

Does the upward trend in temperature follow a rise in atmospheric carbon? Or does a rise in atmospheric carbon follow a rise in temperature. ? I've seen data supporting both. Which should I believe?

 

Yes carbon in the atmosphere and temperature rise are pretty closely correlated. Its a logic issue. Do the insulating gases in the atmosphere increase and then temperatures rise or do temperatures rise and then the gases increase? Was it warmer in your house before or after the DG? If you think about it there is only one possible answer. If higher atmospheric carbon came about as a result of rising temperatures what would that do? - it would create a self re-inforcing effect (heat = more insulation = even more heat = even more insulation and so on) leading to run away climate change - it would create an even greater need for ghg emissions control than now.

Edited 7 March, 2014 by buctootim

[Halo Stickman]

The confidence interval for current global warming being caused by humans is 95% - ie if you threw those numbers up in the air there is only a five percent probability they would land the way they have by chance.

 

20/1, eh? Tell you what – put me down for a fiver, I like an outsider.

[buctootim]

Millions of years ago, in the cradle of humanity, Africa, it was much hotter than today. Humans evolved from from the hairy primates they were, to the only hairless primate on the planet today. Standing upright, away from the hot earth and able to sweat, the new species, homo erectus, was more capable of regulating it's body temperature and could run from danger or catch prey far more effectively:

 

As humans evolved, they discovered that, in order to improve the mechanism by which they regulated their body temperature, it was possible to achieve this by wearing clothes. These clothes could protect from large variations in the climate to which they were exposed. Eventually, modern humans became almost completely hairless and relied upon clothing sold by such companies as Marks and Spencers and Next. It revolutionised civilisation and provided the means to protect the human race from the devastating prospect that the average temperatures on earth may increase by 2C over the next century:.

 

 

Limiting the rise to 2 degrees is the international aim - but we will probably not make it. At +2 degrees as a species overall we'll do fine. Canada and Russia will become much more attractive and productive places to live - much of the Mediterranean, Northern Africa, Middle East, central Asia and Australia - not so much.

 

Im pretty sure a billion people fighting over water and starving from failed crops in already marginal areas will have no impact on us - a country that needs to import 40% of its food. There wont be mass migrations and wars. No sir.

Edited 7 March, 2014 by buctootim

[Whitey Grandad]

I didnt misinterpret 'average' I used a hastily written illustration of a point and didnt check it when writing on a football forum.

 

I suspected as much but just wanted to give you the chance to correct it.

[buctootim]

it doesn't tell us what the dark grey means, is that colder than usual or just normal?

 

No data

[Saint George]

Limiting the rise to 2 degrees is the international aim - but we will probably not make it. At +2 degrees as a species overall we'll do fine. Canada and Russia will become much more attractive and productive places to live - much of the Mediterranean, Northern Africa, Middle East, central Asia and Australia - not so much.

 

Im pretty sure a billion people fighting over water and starving from failed crops in already marginal areas will have no impact on us - a country that needs to import 40% of its food. There wont be mass migrations and wars. No sir.

 

Millions of years ago most of Britain, if not all, was sat under a giant ice cube....I'm sure things are better there now and will continue to be so for many years to come.

 

Control the Earth temp by 2 degrees eh?...that's a good one

[Verbal]

Millions of years ago most of Britain, if not all, was sat under a giant ice cube....I'm sure things are better there now and will continue to be so for many years to come.

 

Control the Earth temp by 2 degrees eh?...that's a good one

 

There's something oddly cultish about you and the majority, it seems, of climate change "sceptics". Of course, they are not true sceptics at all, because actual sceptics test a hypothesis against actual evidence, and test it in a rigorous, scientifically accepted way. But climate change deniers refuse to accept anything that contradicts their core belief, and argue their "case" in a ways that (as above) are meant to sound like there's some science in there somewhere but are simply unintelligible.

[Saint Paul C]

For those that believe that humans run the earths climate, this may add some perspective on just how insignificant we really are in the BIG scheme of things.

 

http://www.onemorelevel.com/game/scale_of_the_universe_2012

[WindsorSaint]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26731790

 

Stephen Belcher, head of the Met Office Hadley Centre, sums it up like this: "We've got to continue living with the cold events and we've got to get used to the hot events."

 

Or Winter and Summer as we used to call these events...

[Minty]

Or Winter and Summer as we used to call these events...

 

Not really, this is about greater extremes.