The new official climate change thread

[fuji]

No, it hasn't.

Here's the graph in Nature. It shows the Earth's average temperature in the 21st century (prior to El Nino) has been stagnant: http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/image_asset_11015.jpg

If you want to understand why you keep getting this completely wrong, read post #243. I shouldn't need to repeat myself.

Yes it has. I posted the data above. Every thirty year interval has been warmer then the previous interval with a brief gap in the 1970s.

Your "argument"is an innumerate claim that we should instead look at the highly variable changes from year to year rather than the obvious, proven, significant long term trend.

Your argument is beyond nonsense. It's willful denial of the truth. You are a fraud.

 

[fuji]

Let's consider how utterly inept MF's argument is. Doesn't want to look at the thirty year averages which is the internationally accepted definition of climate because the data is so stunningly linear: all rise, no trough. Clear undeniable straight line warming.

But he doesn't want to use recent short term data either using various excuses, El Nino's, which are perfectly resolved by the thirty year averages.

So what's left? Cherry picking specific intervals of years?

What's left for MF really is mockery. He has made himself into a joke.

 

[FAST]

There's what FAST says, then there is reality.

While the things you mention are certainly significant, fossil fuels used in industry, energy production, and transportation are the bulk of our emissions.

You just confirmed my point, you had to go to wikipedia to find something even close to the truth, when you could NOT find it with the 3 tax leaches public released crap.

One more time, water vapour is THEE most important "green house gas".

A little hint, water evaporates, so if continually exposing more and more water to the atmosphere, as in farming, the water vapour content in the air will increase.

And you, as the 3 tax leaches continue to do, ignore the FACT that burning and clear cutting forests contribute more CO2 than ALL of the worlds transportation.

But that doesn't make for very good press, does it.

FAST

 

[fuji]

How many other sources would you like?

Burning and clear cutting forests (10% of emissions) DO NOT produce more CO2 than transportation (14% of emissions directly plus another 11.3% from the retrieval and processing of oil into gas). The largest factors are electric power generation (21.3%) and industrial production (16.8).

ALL of those factors represent more than the 10% contributed by burning and clear cutting forests. You are just wrong.

 

[FAST]

It is part of the carbon cycle, so essentially its revenue neutral.

Plants take CO2 out of the air, sequester it in their cells, we eat them or burn them or bury them back in the ground, where that CO2 gets put back in the system.
Here's a nice cartoon like picture that might help you understand this basic cycle.
https://eo.ucar.edu/kids/green/images/carboncycle_sm.jpg

The difference in what we are doing now is that we are taking buried dinosaurs, whose CO2 has been sequestered underground millions of years ago as coal, oil and natural gas and burning that which launches that sequestered CO2 back into the atmosphere.

Really, try to understand it this time.
Its not that difficult.

And you also confirm my point, plus,...that you have to resort to a kids site to understand the environment.

What a bunch of BULL SHIT,...are you telling me that burning and clear cutting forests is "CO2 revenue neutral".

And you also ran away from the FACT that farming irrigation has increased steadily since the 40's,...and which your kiddies site didn't explain to you,... that when water is continually,...and increasingly exposed to the atmosphere, it evaporates.

And,... that the water that evaporates into the atmosphere, becomes by far,...the most influential green house gas.

FAST


PS: You still haven't confirmed if you are going swimming with you climate gate hero,...Fat AL,... at the North Pole this summer.

 

[Frankfooter]

You just confirmed my point, you had to go to wikipedia to find something even close to the truth, when you could NOT find it with the 3 tax leaches public released crap.

One more time, water vapour is THEE most important "green house gas".

A little hint, water evaporates, so if continually exposing more and more water to the atmosphere, as in farming, the water vapour content in the air will increase.

FAST

This is just as good as your total failure to understand the carbon cycle.
(which is evidenced by your tree comment)

Once again.
Water vapour doesn't stay in the atmosphere long, if you put too much in it all falls down as rain, snow or hail.
The only way water vapour changes are a big issue is if there is more heat or evaporation to put it there.
Water vapour levels react to other changes, which is why its a feedback mechanism, not a cause.

CO2 on the other hand can stay in the atmosphere for decades or even centuries, which is why its a big deal.

Even if you were to do your world famous raspberry, and thereby increase the amount of water vapour in the air its effects would be gone in about a week.
The previously sequestered CO2 in the form of dead dinosaurs and plankton we are currently putting in the atmosphere will still be there when your body returns its own carbon back to the carbon cycle, and long after the stink of your raspberry has dissipated.

 

[Frankfooter]

Here's a really great animation of a year of global CO2 output.
http://co2.digitalcartography.org/

Notice how North America and Europe output the vast majority of CO2 and that quite a bit of is sucked up by plants in the summer growing season and oceans. Its the extra CO2 from fossil fuel burning that the carbon cycle can't absorb that's causing levels to rise.

You can also see from this animation how all the elements that FAST thinks are ignored really are included in climatology.

 

[K Douglas]

Deny deny deny deny deny.

You previously tried the satellite argument but then fell silent when it also showed consistent warming.

The satellite record has shown warming at about 0.1C per decade since 2000, which is within the normal range of warming based on the rise of CO2 levels. Maybe in your mind I fell silent but I've never once strayed from the fact that the satellite record is far more accurate and realistic than the surface temperature record.

 

[Frankfooter]

The satellite record has shown warming at about 0.1C per decade since 2000, which is within the normal range of warming based on the rise of CO2 levels. Maybe in your mind I fell silent but I've never once strayed from the fact that the satellite record is far more accurate and realistic than the surface temperature record.

That's really great for those who live in the clouds.
For us who live on the surface, we use those temperatures.

 

[fuji]

The satellite record has shown warming at about 0.1C per decade since 2000, which is within the normal range of warming based on the rise of CO2 levels. Maybe in your mind I fell silent but I've never once strayed from the fact that the satellite record is far more accurate and realistic than the surface temperature record.

Neither is more accurate. The surface data is MUCH more accurate, but covers less area. Though it covers enough of the planet that it's unreasonable that just randomly only the areas not measured are all cooler. And note that it includes many ocean measurements as well as Arctic and Antarctic stations.

The satellite data covers more surface area but contains no temperature data at all. Temperature is imputed from the satellite data by measuring upwelling radiation, but it's not entirely accurate.

In either case both data sets show consistent warming. It's natural that sea based measurements show slower warming as the heat capacity of the ocean has a significant moderating effect and warms up much more slowly than land does.

In any case, Conway 's predicted cooling didn't happen and so we can reject his hypothesis.

 

[Frankfooter]

And if anyone actually wants to learn the real reasons why satellite data isn't as reliable, there's an excellent post here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface_temperature_or_satellite_brightness.html

Of course the deniers here will attack the fact that its at skeptical science, which is too bad.
Its really quite well written and has useful information there, and the references to more detailed info if you need it.

 

[Moviefan-2]

Doesn't want to look at the thirty year averages which is the internationally accepted definition of climate because the data is so stunningly linear....

More of Fuji's least-loved fairy tales.

The internationally recognized metric for measuring the AGW hypothesis is the average annual temperature anomalies, not the 30-year averages.

As much as Fuji has spent days trying to ignore the truth about the international metric, it has been confirmed by the IPCC, NASA, the Met Office, NOAA, Berkeley Earth, the Japan Meteorological Agency, the University of Alabama in Huntsville and others:

http://m5.i.pbase.com/o9/10/152510/1/152647365.VGKk7kJX.IPCC_AR5_W_13jun7.PNG

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.pdf

https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/lo-hem/201604.gif

http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/auto/Global/Complete_TAVG_summary.txt

http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/fig/an_wld.png

http://www.moralcaseforfossilfuels.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/18-4.3.jpg

Your "argument"is an innumerate claim that we should instead look at the highly variable changes from year to year rather than the obvious, proven, significant long term trend.

Your argument is beyond nonsense. It's willful denial of the truth.

Certainly, Fuji can say the world's leading climate researchers are "innumerate" and wilful deniers of the truth, but the fact remains that the internationally accepted metric was created by them, not by me.

Furthermore, the graph that appeared in Nature -- the one that confirms the Earth's temperature has been stagnant in the 21st century -- wasn't created by me.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/sciam/assets/Image/image_asset_11015.jpg

 

[fuji]

The fact that people show the annual data does not contradict or change the fact that climate is defined as thirty years of average weather.

I am seriously questioning what your problem is here. Are you too ignorant to understand that, is it willful ignorance? Or are you somehow just that innumerate?

Statistical regression on that data shows significant warming over any meaningful time period.

Rolling averages are a simple way of getting to the same answer though lack the ability to produce a confidence interval indicating significance.

But there is just no disputing that the climate is getting warmer and the longer you try to dispute this blindingly obvious fact the less credible you become.

Fact: every single thirty year interval has been warmer than every previous interval.

That's a fact whether or not you like it.

 

[Frankfooter]

The internationally recognized metric for measuring the AGW hypothesis is the average annual temperature anomalies, not the 30-year averages.

As much as Fuji has spent days trying to ignore the truth about the international metric, it has been confirmed by the IPCC, NASA, the Met Office, NOAA, Berkeley Earth, the Japan Meteorological Agency, the University of Alabama in Huntsville and others:

I'm glad to hear that you are now backing the IPCC, NASA, the MET Office and NOAA of being the international metric, only days after you had previously accused them of 'enron style fraud'.
Which also means that your only complaint about the bet you lost is a moot point as well.
Now that you've confirmed they are the international metric, its time to admit that 2015 was warmer then the 0.83ºC you predicted and bet it would be.

 

[K Douglas]

And if anyone actually wants to learn the real reasons why satellite data isn't as reliable, there's an excellent post here:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface_temperature_or_satellite_brightness.html

Of course the deniers here will attack the fact that its at skeptical science, which is too bad.
Its really quite well written and has useful information there, and the references to more detailed info if you need it.

Skeptical Science is a propaganda website that is completely biased and run by a non scientist. It has no credibility on the issue. The satellite measurements are much more reliable than surface temperature records because it measures the entire lower troposphere. Where most of the greenhouse gases are located. Since 1980, both the satellite and radiosonde data sets are consistent, the surface temperature record is the outlier.

 

[Frankfooter]

Skeptical Science is a propaganda website that is completely biased and run by a non scientist. It has no credibility on the issue. The satellite measurements are much more reliable than surface temperature records because it measures the entire lower troposphere. Where most of the greenhouse gases are located. Since 1980, both the satellite and radiosonde data sets are consistent, the surface temperature record is the outlier.

I guess that means that Wattsupwiththat is also propaganda, since its not run by scientists?
Correct?

How about the Heartland Institute?

Oh, this could be fun, can we use this criticism of everything you post as well?
What you say must also be propaganda, since you're not a scientist.

Ooh, this is fun.

 

[Moviefan-2]

The fact that people show the annual data does not contradict or change the fact that climate is defined as thirty years of average weather.

Nor does the definition of "climate" alter the fact that the internationally established metric for testing the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis is the annual average temperature anomalies, not the 30 year averages.

You test a hypothesis by measuring the observed results against the predictions, using the same metric for both.

The climate researchers do more than "show" the annual data. The annual data are used to track how the observed results compare with the predictions of how man-made emissions would affect the climate -- both the predictions and the results use annual data.

And, clearly, temperatures in the 21st century were stagnant prior to El Nino and the predictions remain spectacularly wrong.

 

[Frankfooter]

And, clearly, temperatures in the 21st century were stagnant prior to El Nino and the predictions remain spectacularly wrong.

Hey fool.
2010, 2013, 2014 and 2015 are 4 of the warmest years on record.
That's not stagnant, stop relying on one disputed study that doesn't even say what you claim it does.

And don't forget, the one who was spectacularly wrong was you.
You predicted 2015 wouldn't hit 0.83ºC midway through the year and still got it wrong.
The temperatures it hit put 2015 smack dab in the middle of IPCC projections.

You are so wrong.

 

[fuji]

Nor does the definition of "climate" alter the fact that the internationally established metric for testing the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis is the annual average temperature anomalies, not the 30 year averages.

You test a hypothesis by measuring the observed results against the predictions, using the same metric for both.

The climate researchers do more than "show" the annual data. The annual data are used to track how the observed results compare with the predictions of how man-made emissions would affect the climate -- both the predictions and the results use annual data.

And, clearly, temperatures in the 21st century were stagnant prior to El Nino and the predictions remain spectacularly wrong.

Only climate deniers talk about "the AGW hypothesis" so no, that's false. You will be unable to come up with any reference about an international standard for testing "the AGW hypothesis" other than on your kooky denier websites.

In any case we were discussing whether the climate was warming or cooling, not "the AGW hypothesis", whatever that is. We were specifically testing Conway's hypothesis that there would be cooling , and your hypothesis that there has been no warming.

I can quote you quite clearly making this claim that there was no warming and the rolling averages show quite clearly that there is in fact warming, and that this warming continues to this day.

 

[K Douglas]

I guess that means that Wattsupwiththat is also propaganda, since its not run by scientists?
Correct?

How about the Heartland Institute?

Oh, this could be fun, can we use this criticism of everything you post as well?
What you say must also be propaganda, since you're not a scientist.

Ooh, this is fun.

Have you ever seen me reference something with a link to wattsupwiththat.com? However, at least the guy who runs that site has a background in weather and climate. Unlike your boy John Cook who is merely a sociologist posing as an impartial scientist.
The Heartland Institute is a think tank and it sponsors the NIPCC, it's a legit organization that is knowledgeable about the subject of climate change. Nice try.
As far as I am concerned what I express is my opinion which is based on what I have researched about the subject. This is a political forum and this is a political, not scientific, debate. Alarmists have seen to that - they have completely bastardized the scientific method. I just expose it.