Global Warming - 2 German cargo ships pass through 'Arctic Passage'

Talk about 'signs of the times' ... they even sell those plastic coffee pod / single cup machines at Costco now. (and to stay on the ice topic ... the glacier in Glacier National Park is at an all time low ... even more so when you go back to when the great lakes were solid glacier ... but sure ... just look at a 10 or 20 year cycle? you can make it look like what ever you want)

 

:fear:
Ewwww.

You know, I'd almost gotten to the point of thinking a bear hug was a remote possibility, if and when the opportunity presented itself. But this latest revelation has completely changed my mind about you.

 

Hmmm, maybe the two are somehow connected?

Remember, I only take hot (Well, actually, I have my water heater set at 120 F, so call it "warm") water from the tap, to make instant coffee, if I'm in a real hurry to wake up and get going

The combination of the caffeine and the horrid taste, snap me to life

And with some of the Priuschat members, whom I have to rank in the "skinny as a f***ing rake" category, eg Seftonm (Do you EVER eat? At all??), I'd perhaps need a good stiff belt of tap-water-instant-coffee to prepare myself

 

I realize this is a lot to ask, but you might actually report all of what they said. The paper actually says temperatures have not risen in a decade, and that happens by chance, all the time, due to natural variation ("weather"). Here's the relevant set of paragraphs. After describing what they are planning to do (make several runs of models that all embody a steady-state rate of global warming near 0.15 degrees centigrade per decade), they say this about the results:

"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."

Then, this, emphasis mine:

The simulations also produce an average increase of 2.0°C in twenty-first century global temperature, demonstrating that recent observational trends are not sufficient to discount predictions
of substantial climate change and its significant and widespread impacts. Given the likelihood that internal variability contributed to the slowing of global temperature rise in the last decade, we expect that warming will resume in the next few years, consistent with predictions from near-term climate forecasts (Smith et al. 2007; Haines et al. 2009)."

Based on your post about the ice, where you infer and end to global warming based on two years of data, you don't quite seem to grasp the concept of natural or random variation. And how much time is required before you can say much about trends, absent any all-time record. Despite the numerous posts on that topic on these boards in the past.

So, what the Brits actually said was, the trend over the decade is close to zero. I don't think that's exactly new, given how 2008 turned out. You can see that had to be close to true from pretty much any temperature chart, or by grasping that (e.g.) NASA GISS shows 1998 and 2007 tied for being the second warmest years in the instrumental record, whereas 2008 was somewhere near the 8th or 9th warmest year on record. The important part of the paper is their analysis demonstrating that zero- or negative-trend decades should be commonly observed, in a world in which the long-term trend is about 0.15 degrees centigrade per decade.

As an afterthought, it's worth noting that, at least as I understand it, the Brits ignore most warming at the north pole which may lead to modest disagreements between their timeseries data and the NASA GISS.

So, putting your incomplete reporting aside, what's probably more interesting is that both the Brits and GISS have put out a fairly ballsy little projection about the next bit of change. In the paper you cite, the Brits say that 15 years with zero trend would pass traditional 95% confidence interval tests. In other words, another five years at zero and they'll need to change their minds. Then they say, based on short-term predictions, they expect temperatures to start rising again. Meanwhile, the 2008 temperature summary from the NASA GISS (the most recent annual summary) says this, after working through all the short-term factors affecting the annual variation in global temperature (again, emphasis mine):

"Summary: The Southern Oscillation and increasing GHGs continue to be, respectively, the dominant factors affecting interannual and decadal temperature change. Solar irradiance has a non-negligible effect on global temperature [see, e.g., ref. 7, which empirically estimates a somewhat larger solar cycle effect than that estimated by others who have teased a solar effect out of data with different methods]. Given our expectation of the next El Niño beginning in 2009 or 2010, it still seems likely that a new global temperature record will be set within the next 1-2 years, despite the moderate negative effect of the reduced solar irradiance."

So, the entire story is: the Brits say the trend over the last decade was essentially zero. And they say episodes like that are common with an underlying 0.15 degree centigrade per decade trend. But, they say, 15 years like that would pass the 5% test for statistical significance (i.e., really would represent an unexplained change), and both the Brits and NASA say we should see a temperature upturn soon. NASA GISS says the end of the La Nina phase, in their opinion, means its likely we'll set a new global temperature record in 2009 or 2010.

So if you are correct, and global warming is over, you won't have long to wait before you can gloat about it. Or before you'll have to eat your words.

 

stats show that not only will the average 'normal' weight person outlive fatso ... the average skinny person will live the normal weight person
ergo, I swim


.

 

the effect or cause (choose you poison) of GCC, GW and outright changes in our environment can argue raw temperature data changes all day long. that is fine, cant stop that.

i guess if it aint getting warmer, we will just attribute to loss of ice to other things; drought or klepto polar bears taking on squirrel like habits and stashing ice out of sight.

 

Nothing here negates my original statement wich indicates the authors support the AGW theory. I merely state that they acknowledge the lack of temperature increase on the last decade (which they do).

In addition, I absolutely LOVE the term 'non-negligable' used to describe the influence of solar irradiance. A recent peer-reviewed paper suggests an amplifier of solar irradiance accounts for all the warming attributed to CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Amplifying the Pacific Climate System Response to a Small 11-Year Solar Cycle Forcing -- Meehl et al. 325 (5944): 1114 -- Science

Update - It won't really matter when AGW via CO2 is proven to be a flawed theory. It will already be too late to undo draconian 'solutiohs' to the CO2 'problem' OR failing that, governmennts and radical environmentalists will aleays have a new cause that needs immediate attention. It WILL be man's fault; it WILL need regulation; it WILL require acquiescence or else.

 

I'm husky, not skinny. That is, if I turn sideways, I don't disappear

 

Reporting part of a published work, while ignoring the actual firm conclusions of the work, as stated by the authors, that's called cherry-picking. It's what people do to present a biased view of the research.

And, in classic tradition, you now want to turn to yet another misinterpretation of yet a different paper. Nope, sorry, I'm not going to subscribe to Science to see if the paper actually says anything like what you say it says. I'll read the abstract.

Funny thing, you claim this new paper completely explains all global warming attributed to C02, but the abstract says absolutely nothing like that. Boy, those guys must be pretty humble to have made such an astonishing find and just not even bother to mention it. Or, maybe you're blathering again, as you did in the endless-supply-of-oil post. I'm betting on the latter, and I've wasted enough time trying to see whether you actually have anything of substance to say.

If you care to subscribe to Nature, and copy out the exact language in that paper where the authors themselves claim to have explained "all the warming attributed to CO2 as a greenhouse gas", as you say above, then by golly, maybe I will go pay to read it. Barring that, given your last two posts, I think the smart money is that they said no such thing, and that this is once again your distortion of the research.

 

ufourya will lie any way he can to present things as he wants them to be. That's just the way he is and what he does. It's both pathetic and reprehensible.

 

Are you sure it's not bought and paid for? His language and technique remind me of another guy who posted here. The approach is pretty stylized: Here's an outrageous distortion -- oh, you bothered to look up those facts, well ... here's another outrageous distortion, take that. And so on. I'm blocking on the name of the other guy who used to do that here all the time.

Basically, it takes about two minutes to see that the headline as posted is wrong, or that the interpretation of the study is cherrypicked, and so on. But there's a strong trend these days to doing just that -- publishing the deceiving headline anyway -- fully realizing the most readers will not bother to try to comprehend the story. It's the least expensive and least actionable way of transmitting the impression you want to transmit when the facts are firmly against your case.

And he does seem to be making a job of it. Beats me what would motivate other than blogvertising income.

Hey, whatsyournoodle, care to explain why you post things that are demonstrably wrong and biased? I mean, unlimited oil was clearly wrong. Taking the Met Office research that says ten years of zero trend is not significant, then using that to bolster your position that global warming is a croc, that's pretty clearly wrong. Telling me that this peer reviewed paper explains all the warming attributed to CO2 appears wrong (or the authors are the most humble people of all time).

I mean, the odd thing is that, once challenged, you do seem smart enough to understand it, so it's not like you're posting it out of inability to grasp the facts. Why are you, then? Why spend so much time tossing out crap? Why not find something interesting to talk about, something genuinely debatable? Seems to me that you're playing a fairly professional game, just tossing out headlines for the benefit of those who won't bother to take a minute or two to look up the facts. Are you being paid to do that, or do you have some other strong motivation for spending your time doing this stuff. If so, what is it?

I mean, I'm finding all kinds of interesting but scary things these days. Did you read MIT's report? Cripes. Five+ degrees C by 2100, based on the latest data. Been keeping up with how the story on methane is developing? Last I knew, the potential for a methane-induced leap in temperature was being discounted by the best and brightest. Now, not so clear -- you could have one prolonged outgassing sufficiently large as to build methane levels faster than the methane naturally decays in the atmosphere. It's going from being thought not relevant to being though plausible. Saw a clip from the DOE Sect'y on that where he just said, at that point, the system is in runaway mode, nothing could be done, we can't allow that to happen -- my interpretation being that he was not even willing to think about that scenario. Then there are the anomalous speedups and slowdown in meltwater ruoff during the end of the last ice age. Nobody's quite sure how they happened, but if they happen again, it implies brief periods of large shoreline change. The IPCC sealevel rise assumes no large dynamical changes in the ice sheets, but it's hard to get big bursts of runoff without such. So I'm hearing more and more seemingly credible people saying that, well, might not be your grandkids that have to deal with the crap from this, might be your kids. Might be you in your old age. The expectation of a smooth change in equilibrium needs to be tempered with at least some low odds of some portion of the changes happening rather quickly. My next-door neighbors are retiring to Nova Scotia -- told us all about the relevant legal requirements. Didn't seem all that burdensome. Maybe they're on to something.

 

Outrageous distortion is the norm for the denialist camp. Are they bought and paid for? Wouldn't surprise me.

However, there are a lot of people actually stupid enough to believe the denialist crap. Never understimate the stupidity of the average human being.

The other thing at play though is wishful thinking--that can completely override intelligence or reason. They don't want to believe it could happen, therefore, it can't happen, game over. You can't crack a nut like that, no amount of reality will sway them from their self-reinforcing circular logic. This reality distortion field is pervasive in U.S. business culture, GOP politics, political conservatism (I repeat myself), conservative media (aka Talk/Hate Radio and FauxNews), and supply siding economics. It's reached the point of utter lunacy. It would be hilarious if they weren't serious...

The denialists will repeat the same lies periodically even after the errors have been demonstrated to them. They are intellectually dishonest and lack any integrity.

With global warming the magnitude of each effect is anyone's guess...and worthy of debate. The problem is that the denialists start from the position that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, and even if it is man can't effect the climate, etc. They repeatedly stake their beliefs on the easily disproven aspects. There is no intellectual honesty apparent in the denialist side. Without such honesty there can be no civil debate, nor should debate even be encouraged until they show some integrity. Dismiss them as fools until they stop playing the fool.

 

Two glasses of water on the table... one has a single ice cube in it, the other has a dozen ice cubes in it. The water temp in each glass is 33 degrees F. Which glass of water is warmer?

The Earth used to have some pretty big ice cubes up there at the poles. Now they're much smaller than at any time in recorded history.

Maybe the question shouldn't be which glass of water is warmer.... Rather, which glass will maintain its temperature longest?

 

Can we use gin and tonic instead of water, for the example with ice cubes?

 

And once the glass is drained, the problem of the melting ice is rendered irrelevant.

Tom

 

And, since I'm Irish and Native American (two races well known for their alcohol capcity, right?) after 2 of those I doubt I'd know what global warming is, let alone care.

 

Two identical freezers standing next to each other... one is filled 3/4 of the way with ice blocks. The other only contains a tray of ice cubes. The ambient temp in each freezer is 0 degrees Fahrenheit. Which freezer is colder?

If the power goes out, which freezer will keep your alcohol cold longer? Or are you too drunk by now to care?

 

:doh:

Yes

Correct

 

Since the IMPLICATIONS of papers I quoted seem to escape the esteemed readers here (I know sometimes, it is difficult to acknowledge that 2 + 2 = 4) and has led to the claim of cherrry-picking, let us look at some cherry-picking:

...More recently, in response to the data showing no warming for the last 10 years, I have seen new claims that global land temperatures are now deemed irrelevant. The newly discovered measure of importance is the rise in ocean temperature, since it is now claimed that this is by far the largest planetary heat sink. If that claim is true, it makes all the previous data claiming to show strong global warming over the period 1975 to 1998 also irrelevant. To suggest that from 1975 to 1998, the energy went into warming the land and air and then abruptly in 1998 it stopped doing that and the heat instead went into heating the oceans is, to me, completely absurd. Nature simply does not work that way. It is like claiming you put the kettle on, for the first minute the energy goes into heating the water and then abruptly it stops heating the water and starts heating the room instead.

Looking further at the claim of warming ocean temperatures. Late last century it was realised that the method of measuring ocean temperatures was extremely inaccurate and unreliable. To overcome that, a sophisticated, global system of buoys was designed and implemented at very considerable cost and effort. These buoys repeatedly dive down to measure temperatures and then resurface to report back findings This network is called the Argo network and it became operational in 2003. Since becoming operational, it has shown ocean cooling. Yet the scientists who claim ongoing ocean warming exclude the Argo data and the satellite data instead relying entirely on the earlier poor reliability methods.

The same scientific community which claimed a method was inaccurate and unreliable, designed and implemented a new high accuracy measurement system, are now rejecting the new high accuracy data in favour of the older data they themselves viewed as unreliable. How can that be justified? Why is the data from the older less reliable method correct, while results from the new, high accuracy methodology are wrong? What does that say about the scientists who designed the Argo system but apparently don’t trust its output? To me it suggests selecting data to prove a favoured hypothesis, commonly called cherry picking.

Some sites are talking about “correcting” the Argo data. Why should a carefully thought out, brand new, high accuracy system already require adjustment to its outputs? Was a mistake made in the design? Why are the proposed adjustments again in the direction of exacerbating the claimed warming? When the raw data contradicts the hypothesis yet the “adjustments and corrections” all reverse that result so as to support the championed hypothesis, it’s time to start worrying.

~ Michael Hammer

 

Who is pathetic and telling reprehensible lies? There is plenty here to educate the ignorant and brain-washed AGW religionists.


With the release of Al Gore's propaganda movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' and with the help of the media the public has been driven into a mass hysteria based not on science but lies. You will learn that there is no empirical evidence that man-made CO2 is the primary cause of the mild 0.6c increase in temperature over the last 100 years, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not pollution, pollution has nothing to do with global warming, Al Gore and his movie are a fraud, there is no "consensus" on the cause of global warming, the earth has been warmer in the past then it is today, the land based temperature stations are biased and their temperature records have been "adjusted", Antarctica is not melting, Arctic sea ice cannot effect sea level, sea levels are rising millimeters not feet, computer climate models are worthless, polar bears are not endangered or dying, droughts and hurricanes are not caused or made worse by global warming and there is extensive evidence of natural causes for global warming such as increased solar activity and orbital variations.

The current man-made global warming hysteria is largely driven by the environmentalist movement in an attempt to reshape western society away from capitalism by implementing state control (socialism) over private energy usage (Carbon Taxes, Cap and Trade). These environmentalists wish to get rid of the suburbs, SUVs, single family homes and return western society to a neo-urbanistic state of living. This is because the current environmentalist movement is filled with ex-communists and neo-socialists who have long ago abandoned science and replaced it with their politically motivated environmental "religion". Don't believe me? Go ask any "environmentalist" - socialism or capitalism? No, not all scientists even those who support man-made global warming theory seek these politically motivated intentions but their position has been distorted and exaggerated for political gain by extremists. I have created this page to help shed light on what you have not been told.

Popular Technology -> The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource


"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
- Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Propaganda Minister