It's all over but for the sweating?

[gone-ot]

...well, according to the Brits at the Met-Office, global warming ceased 16 years ago (wink,wink):

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...well, according to the Brits at the Met-Office, global warming ceased 16 years ago (wink,wink):

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online

I alluded to this in my post - the met didn't release a report - they updated their data - and (as the met office correctly posts in response) the result depends on your selected start and end dates.

Plus the Daily Mail is not the best source of info - they scream about declining morals in the country but more or less every picture on the right hand side of the home page is of a woman or girl (and they also scream about child abuse) in a state of undress or worse - morons the lot of them.

[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...well, according to the Brits at the Met-Office, global warming ceased 16 years ago (wink,wink):

Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly released... and here is the chart to prove it | Mail Online

When they use 1998 and compair it to current temperatures, yes it would appear that way, but 1998 was a weather anomaly caused by a very strong el nino event. If you disregard 1998 temperatures continued to increase through to 2005, then leveled off and even cooled. (11 year solar cycle)

Niel: I have showed the science, and the sources why I believe what I believe, beyond that there is nothing else I can do but agree to disagree and hope I at least gave you some food for thought. I don't accept "trust us" as an answer even from people who are supposed to be experts in their field, I have to know the whys and hows, and that lead me to where I am now.

[TheEnemy]

How about this, instead of showing me people that basically say That I am wrong show me why or how I am wrong, because without doing that I won't be convinced that I am wrong.

[user removed]

When I lived in the Florida Keys in the early 1980s we had a cold spell that got many worried about the water temp dropping below 60 degrees, which would kill the coral reefs.
Those reefs were supposed to be millions of years old.

regards
Mech

[niky]

Ah, good old Daily Fail. They print junk articles so regularly that you'd hhink they were doing it on purpose to hide the one or two decent articles they actually print.

(I'm sure they exist... Somewhere...)

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Yep - greater extremes than now were in play.

Sure, since there's about a billion years to look at. Now ask yourself whether those extremes would have been pleasant times to live in. Most relevantly, we have an instance of global warming which, as best we can tell from the evidence remaining after ~250 million years, was due at least in part to the burning of large coal beds. That event - the Permian/Tertiary Extinction - killed off some 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species. Being that I am myself a terrestrial vertebrate, I don't care for the prospect.

The rest of the non-CO2 related temperature excursions are largely irrelevant (except as they tell us things about the climate in general), because we KNOW beyond any possible doubt that humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations beyond their normal levels.

Wrong. If it was as simple as that the models predicting temperature would be spot on which they aren't.

But the models ARE pretty much spot on. As for instance Hansen's "Scenario B", which comes fairly close to what actually happened - and comes closer still if you go back and plug in actual CO2 increases instead of the guesses made back in the '80s. And yes, I know you can find some denialist sites that claim Hansen was wrong. If you examine their claims, you'll see that they are lying.

You misunderstand my motives - 1) credibility in the science needs to be rebuilt after some bad episodes.

Not true. Sure, the above denialist sites have tried desperately to use a few out-of-context quotes and such to create an impression of a lack of credibility, but the only people who believe them are the confirmed denialists.

Maybe you don't agree but for example CAGW was not mentioned in the US election...

Why did it need to be mentioned? You had one party running a pair of (excuse my language) effing creationist idiots, backed up by Senate candidates mouthing off about things like "legitimate rape". And notice that they lost :-)

Also 2) it would be useful to know what prevention / mitigation steps may be needed, what will work and what will work best. And 3) the models could be improved

Of course anything can be improved, but if you've just fallen off a cliff, do you really care that a detailed model that takes account of the variability of air resistance with temperature predicts you will impact the ground in exactly 5.328 seconds?

Prof. Mann has never released all of the code citing IPR, and has withheld quite a lot of the data - so it remains a black box.

So why should Mann have to release his work to gratify denialists? Especially when their primary motive seems to be to keep him and other climate scientists so busy responding to their harassment that they won't be able to do actual work? Plenty of similar data is available, and when analyzed shows similar results, which is a far more robust confirmation than picking apart one study that you disagree with.

Again given all of the code and data hasn't been released, how do we know ? Maybe Open Source it ?

Plenty of open source climate code out there. Look up EdGCM, for instance.

Would that be a reference to Professor Muller who thinks other climate scientists were "guilty of fraud" and Al Gore is a "science denier" ? No really he did say that - listen here.

Sure, he thought that. Then he actually looked at the data, discovered that he was wrong, and was honest enough to admit it.

[NeilBlanchard]

If you watch the Earth the Operator's Manual videos, you can learn about the science around climate change.

Like evolution, there are many overlapping fields of science that corroborate - and they are all interdependent. You can't pick and choose - the geology and biology and chemistry and astrophysics and oceanography and chemistry and basic physics - all contribute a part of the overall evidence.

The thing about doubting what the overwhelming scientific conclusion and all the data are, do you also doubt other areas of science? Plate tectonics or DNA or the atomic and subatomic particles or astrophysics or DNA are all beyond what most of us can "know" - and yet we accept them. Why is it that climate change is any different?

[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard

If you watch the Earth the Operator's Manual videos, you can learn about the science around climate change.

Like evolution, there are many overlapping fields of science that corroborate - and they are all interdependent. You can't pick and choose - the geology and biology and chemistry and astrophysics and oceanography and chemistry and basic physics - all contribute a part of the overall evidence.

The thing about doubting what the overwhelming scientific conclusion and all the data are, do you also doubt other areas of science? Plate tectonics or DNA or the atomic and subatomic particles or astrophysics or DNA are all beyond what most of us can "know" - and yet we accept them. Why is it that climate change is any different?

I did watch it, the closest thing they had to actual science were the ice cores. Ice cores do show some correlation, but its a dubious one at best, there is some uncertanty as to whether the CO2 rose first or temperatures rose first and which caused what. It is just continuing to tell me I am wrong and that so many people agree that I am wrong. I have been in those cases before where everyone told me I was wrong, but it turned out I was right. Likewise I have been wrong when everyone agreed with me. If you want to sway me you need to show me why I am wrong.

I have show that yes the solar output has increased, and showed my calculations of where the IPCC got their numbers for the solar influence, and pointed out that the solar influence was being compaired to CO2 with feedbacks.

I don't doubt all other science, the other areas of science you have pointed out have alolowed themselves to be open, if you have questions on those subjects they will show you why, If you disagree with a conclusion they will discuss it, and will not try to discredit your reputation. That is not so with global warming, even if you have a very credible argument your reputation gets attacked, resources removed etc... It is not open to critisism, it is not open to differing theories. If you don't support the theory that we are responsible for the vast majority they will not even share any findings (got that from the first climategate emails)

So please show me where I am wrong, the best place would be if you can show that the IPCC values for the contribution from CO2 do not include feedbacks, even better if you can provide the source for their calculations.

[TheEnemy]

Sure, since there's about a billion years to look at. Now ask yourself whether those extremes would have been pleasant times to live in. Most relevantly, we have an instance of global warming which, as best we can tell from the evidence remaining after ~250 million years, was due at least in part to the burning of large coal beds. That event - the Permian/Tertiary Extinction - killed off some 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species. Being that I am myself a terrestrial vertebrate, I don't care for the prospect.

In all reality they only have conjecture as to the cause, with several theories including the one you listed.

The rest of the non-CO2 related temperature excursions are largely irrelevant (except as they tell us things about the climate in general), because we KNOW beyond any possible doubt that humans have increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations beyond their normal levels.

Yes, there is no real argument there.

But the models ARE pretty much spot on. As for instance Hansen's "Scenario B", which comes fairly close to what actually happened - and comes closer still if you go back and plug in actual CO2 increases instead of the guesses made back in the '80s. And yes, I know you can find some denialist sites that claim Hansen was wrong. If you examine their claims, you'll see that they are lying.

I have only seen one that was even remotely close, and the authors admitted that they still had lots of work to go. They had CO2 and solar forcing at equal ammounts.

Speaking of Hansen, why have outside observers had to correct the temperature data he has put out on several occasions for being too high? Human error would dictate that such errors would be either higher or lower but rarely would such errors consistently be the same.

Not true. Sure, the above denialist sites have tried desperately to use a few out-of-context quotes and such to create an impression of a lack of credibility, but the only people who believe them are the confirmed denialists.



Why did it need to be mentioned? You had one party running a pair of (excuse my language) effing creationist idiots, backed up by Senate candidates mouthing off about things like "legitimate rape". And notice that they lost :-)



Of course anything can be improved, but if you've just fallen off a cliff, do you really care that a detailed model that takes account of the variability of air resistance with temperature predicts you will impact the ground in exactly 5.328 seconds?

What would it matter if a model said I was falling off a cliff if I am a mile away from said cliff?

So why should Mann have to release his work to gratify denialists? Especially when their primary motive seems to be to keep him and other climate scientists so busy responding to their harassment that they won't be able to do actual work? Plenty of similar data is available, and when analyzed shows similar results, which is a far more robust confirmation than picking apart one study that you disagree with.

He refuses to share his work with even other climate scientists if they do not already agree with him.

Plenty of open source climate code out there. Look up EdGCM, for instance.

I will be looking it up.

Sure, he thought that. Then he actually looked at the data, discovered that he was wrong, and was honest enough to admit it.