Register to Comment
Like Tree9044Likes
  1. #12271
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,699

    Quote Originally Posted by andrejsv View Post
    Why are you using a linear trend line on a cyclical event?
    You can get any slope (any trend) depending on what part of the sinusoid you pick.
    There are multidecadal events that have oscillatory behaviour, one of them is the pacific decadal oscillation which has entered a cold phase. There are other events that have periods of hundreds of years, such as recovering from the cold temperatures from the little ice age, that took centuries. And it is not clear if the temperature increase in the 1990 and 2000's were simply part of that or some other factor. (Things that would increase temperatures would be higher sun activity, cleaner (less polluted air), increased ozone layer, etc). Not everything is tied to a rise in CO2 concentration.
    But it is clear, and even general deniers of climate science do not deny it. Dr Roy Spencer says his cubic polynomial fit is "for entertainment only" because he wants to deceive your eyes without embarrassing himself. He is depending on your gullibility, and you fall for it every time.

    Even Anthony Watts is saying this:



    Temperature Rise is (Global Warming Signal)+(Natural Variability)+(Statistical Noise). That is not too hard to understand. Foster and Rahmsdorff(2010) adjusted for the natural variability since 1979 and got this:



    So, again, and boringly again, of course not everything is tied to CO2 concentration, but the main secular trend of global warming is. Sometimes the warming trends acts with natural variability and sometimes against.

    I dont dispute that there was a period of global temperature increase between the 80's and early 2000's. What I dispute are claims that it is accelerating, that it will continue with the same trend from years to come, that it will be 4 deg C in 100 years when the data extrapolation shows 1.4 deg c, or that it is the hottest it has been in 125,000, etc. I even dispute that it is a bad thing, as I see benefits from warming, overwhelmingly better than if we would get cooling instead as cooling would lead to famine, war, deaths, etc.
    A linear trend is not accelerating, but it might do so if the underlying physical process causes it. What you are saying is that you dispute everything, in spite of the evidence to the contrary. And you call yourself a "sceptic".

    To give you your due, at least you struggle with the science (as a lot of us do), not like your egregious compatriots on the thread.
    Last edited by owedtojoy; 30th April 2012 at 04:39 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #12272
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,699

    Quote Originally Posted by Agnotologist View Post
    You have been peddling this slander about owed for some time, FM. How about cutting it out and, instead, doing a little culling of your own.

    You could start with looking up some of the science and posting that. Argument of your own is not in the cards since you seem to be sublimely ignorant of the science involved and of what the science says.
    Don't bother yourself. The Field Marshal is a pompous prig, and I couldn't give a rat's ass for his opinion of me.

    As for politics, the creature is so far up his own hole, he can't see he is the most political animal on the thread, and wouldn't recognise a scientific fact if it bit him on the ass.

    As for the good news - my Amazon Kindle got delivered today and the first book I am reading on it is The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, by Michael Mann, recent recipient of the Oeschger Award from the European Geophysical Union.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #12273
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,699

    John Nielsen-Gammon, State Climatologist of Texas, has a good paost on the "Lack of Warming", relevant to anrejsv's post above.

    N-G does find an effect due to a sequence of La Ninas, the periodic cooling of the Pacific Ocean. However, we are moving into an El Nino phase.

    http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/f...7withlines.pdf

    So we see a couple of recent La Niņas have caused the recent global temperature trend to level off. But be honest: doesn’t it seem likely that, barring another major volcanic eruption, the next El Niņo will cause global temperatures to break their previous record? Doesn’t it appear that whatever has caused global temperatures to rise over the past four decades is still going strong?

    So about that lack of warming: Yes, it’s real. You can thank La Niņa.

    As for whether this means that Tyndall gases are no longer having an impact: Nice try.
    About the Lack of Warming… | Climate Abyss | a Chron.com blog
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #12274
    osioradain osioradain is offline

    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    227

    Quote Originally Posted by onetimeonly View Post
    I like this kind of stuff. Can you give a link?
    I was reading it on BBC website 5 min before i posted but i cant seem to find the page now..they said if it was a country it would be the 5 biggest polluter..
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #12275
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,699

    Strictly speaking unrelated to climate change, but of great importance nonetheless.

    The Royal Society have issued an important report on population and consumption of the world's resources in preparation for the Rio summit.

    Population per se is less of a problem, but parallel to it is the expectations of growing billions (especially in the BRICS - Brazil, India, China, and South Africa) that they or their children will live a lifestyle equivalent to the American and European middle class of today, with all the food and energy consumption that entails.

    And it looks as if the Earth cannot sustain that. For example, demand for energy resources is growing at 4% per year. Does not seem much, but something growing at that rate will double every twenty years. Which means that by about 2040, they world will need 4 times as much delivered energy as it does today, when oil is peaking and square miles are about to be ravaged by fracking to eke out the last accessible molecules of gas.

    Something's gotta give.

    Here is the BBC website: BBC News - Population and consumption key to future, report says

    Over-consumption in rich countries and rapid population growth in the poorest both need to be tackled to put society on a sustainable path, a report says.

    An expert group convened by the Royal Society spent nearly two years reading evidence and writing their report.

    Firm recommendations include giving all women access to family planning, moving beyond GDP as the yardstick of economic health and reducing food waste.

    The report will feed into preparations for the Rio+20 summit in June.

    "This is an absolutely critical period for people and the planet, with profound changes for human health and wellbeing and the natural environment," said Sir John Sulston, the report's chairman.

    "Where we go is down to human volition - it's not pre-ordained, it's not the act of anything outside humanity, it's in our hands."
    Last edited by owedtojoy; 26th April 2012 at 11:14 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #12276
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,699



    Naomi Oreskes confronts a climate change denier "You are right to want to make sure that the correct approach is being taken with confidence. But your denial of the science is making things worse!"
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #12277
    Destiny's Soldier Destiny's Soldier is offline
    Destiny's Soldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    3,441

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post

    Temperature Rise is (Global Warming Signal)+(Natural Variability)+(Statistical Noise). That is not too hard to understand. Foster and Rahmsdorff(2010) adjusted for the natural variability since 1979 and got this:


    But a more realistic presentation is as follows:

    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #12278
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,699

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny's Soldier View Post
    But a more realistic presentation is as follows:
    The first chart from Foster and Rahmsdorff (2010) was an isolation of the warming trend after natural variability (volcanos, La Ninas, El Ninos, sulphate aerosols, solar variabiity) is removed, so it is not an apples-apples comparison. Note the lower chart fails to display the trend, because there is an increasing trend there.

    This chart has the tricks I point out before to deceive the eye

    - Stretch the x-axis to make it longer than the y-axis. That compresses the data into the middle and makes it srtificially static.
    - Put a lot of whitespace at the top and bottom of the chart for the same reason.

    Here is one of the data streams (UAH, as it happens) in a better display.



    And here is another one courtesy of andrejsv:



    The IPCC prediction is 0.2C/ decade rise in the 21st century.
    Last edited by owedtojoy; 26th April 2012 at 07:08 PM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #12279
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,699



    A survey by George Mason University seems to show the American public are solidly behind renewable energy, and want the state to take a firm line on pollution and GHG emissions. Even 67% of Republicans "strongly" support, or "somewhat" support regulation of CO2.

    • 63 percent of Americans support “signing an international treaty that requires the United States to cut its emissions of carbon dioxide 90 percent by the year 2050“!
    • By a margin of 3 to 1 — 61 percent to 20 percent — Americans say they would be more likely to vote for a political candidate who supports a “revenue neutral” tax shift, increasing taxes on fossil fuels, and reducing the federal income tax by an equal amount.
    • 61 percent said they support holding the fossil fuel industry responsible for “hidden costs we pay for citizens who get sick from polluted air and water, military costs to maintain access to foreign oil, and the environmental costs of spills and accidents.”
    • By 3 to 1 — 58 percent to 17 percent — Americans say “protecting the environment … improves economic growth and provides new jobs” vs those who say it “reduces economic growth and costs jobs.”
    • Asked “When there is a conflict between environmental protection and economic growth, which do you think is more important?” an amazing 62 percent supported “protecting the environment, even if it reduces economic growth” vs. 38 percent who backed “Economic growth, even if it leads to environmental problems.”
    Discussion: Climate Progress | ThinkProgress

    http://environment.yale.edu/climate/...March-2012.pdf
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #12280
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    24,699

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Strictly speaking unrelated to climate change, but of great importance nonetheless.

    The Royal Society have issued an important report on population and consumption of the world's resources in preparation for the Rio summit.

    Population per se is less of a problem, but parallel to it is the expectations of growing billions (especially in the BRICS - Brazil, India, China, and South Africa) that they or their children will live a lifestyle equivalent to the American and European middle class of today, with all the food and energy consumption that entails.

    And it looks as if the Earth cannot sustain that. For example, demand for energy resources is growing at 4% per year. Does not seem much, but something growing at that rate will double every twenty years. Which means that by about 2040, they world will need 4 times as much delivered energy as it does today, when oil is peaking and square miles are about to be ravaged by fracking to eke out the last accessible molecules of gas.

    Something's gotta give.

    Here is the BBC website: BBC News - Population and consumption key to future, report says
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment