How Bad Is Global Warming?

[Joe Hillshoist]

My country is run by fucktards:

Julie Bishop has intensified diplomatic efforts to avoid the Great Barrier Reef being deemed “in danger”, claiming any listing would set a “very dangerous precedent” that would affect other heritage sites around the world.

Bishop, who arrived in Lima for climate change talks on Tuesday, will use the trip to escalate Australia’s lobbying of other nations to avert the Great Barrier Reef being downgraded by Unesco’s world heritage committee next year.

The committee, comprised of experts from 20 countries, will decide whether the reef, which has lost half its coral cover in the past 30 years, should be listed as “in danger”.

Bishop said there is “no justification” for this to happen, warning it would have negative international ramifications.

...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -in-danger

[Ben D]

^ joe...nothing has changed, as I revealed last time you were on this thread...you are out of your depth...it is not that the human derived portion of CO2 is not contributing, we can all agree it is to some degree....but it is not the predominate cause. Iow, it is not greater than natural climate variability...as revealed by the failed climate models shown in the graph.

As to your question about the axes.....it's sort of what one would expect from someone who feels that the school room explanation of CO2 warming you gave is needed when talking to me....it reveals how far you are out of your depth. Now it is ok with me that you believe in agw....but don't pretend you know the science...for I will continue to call you out on your lack of depth of understanding on climate science...

My country has many simple people who think they are know better...

[Joe Hillshoist]

As to your question about the axes.....it's sort of what one would expect from someone who feels that the school room explanation of CO2 warming you gave is needed when talking to me.

Oh ffs i know what they mean but i'm wondering if you do.

it is not that the human derived portion of CO2 is not contributing, we can all agree it is to some degree....but it is not the predominate cause.

What is then?

it is not greater than natural climate variability...as revealed by the failed climate models shown in the graph.

How does that graph say anything about natural variability?

It doesn't. The warming of the last hundred years is outside all reasonable measures of "natural variability", You could prove me wrong by showing data about natural variability that contradicts this.

The failed climate models are also failed models. So what.

Don't worry about explaining the graph to me. I'll explain it to you.

So since 1983 the temperature has risen .3 to .4 deg at the surface and in the low atmosphere compared to the ave for 1979 - 83. Of course 1979-1983 was already .15 to.2 deg above the 1960 to 1991 average, so while the models are wrong this graph hides the warming by using a baseline thats already approx .2 of a degree higher than the late 20th century baseline. that skews them and makes them look more wrong.

They people making these models reckon they will be better with new methods for accounting for ocean temps. that remains to be seen, but it is the nature of modelling things. As variables are understood the modelling becomes more accurate. It'll never be 100% accurate. No model ever is.

None the less this graph does show that the ave temp has increased by .35 to .4 deg above the mean for 1979 - 83 or .5 to .6 of a degree above the 1960 to 1990 mean. The models might be wrong but this graph shows warming, and funnily enough it shows most of it happening in the period since the significant warming was supposed to have stopped. Oh and there is nothing to suggest this warming is natural variability in the temperature record.

The models are wrong, but not in principle, just detail. In the absence of anything else that still leaves GHGs as the major cause of warming.

[slimmouse]

This should be the bottom line on global warming....

We know its happening, but we dont know anything for sure based on the best models.

Nonetheless, we should make a concerted effort to stop a small coterie of psycopaths from raping our planet and making us pay for the privilege of them doing so, via "'the carbom tax""

coming out of your very own pockets as we speak.

[Joe Hillshoist]

Things were better in Australia when we had a Carbon tax.

[coffin_dodger]

Air pollution 'causing deadly public health crisis' BBC News 8 Dec 2014

New schools, care homes and hospitals should be built far away from major roads because of the dangers of air pollution, a report by MPs says.

The Environmental Audit Committee argues air pollution is a "public health crisis" causing nearly as many deaths as smoking.

cont - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-30349398

Why is diesel now bad news? BBC News 9 Dec 2014

The Mayor of Paris Anne Hidalgo wants to ban diesel cars and the pollution they bring from the streets of the French capital. But not long ago, diesel engines were thought to be environmentally friendly. What could have gone wrong?

cont - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30381223

SNAFU

[Ben D]

As to your question about the axes.....it's sort of what one would expect from someone who feels that the school room explanation of CO2 warming you gave is needed when talking to me.

Oh ffs i know what they mean but i'm wondering if you do.

it is not that the human derived portion of CO2 is not contributing, we can all agree it is to some degree....but it is not the predominate cause.

What is then?

it is not greater than natural climate variability...as revealed by the failed climate models shown in the graph.

How does that graph say anything about natural variability? It doesn't. The warming of the last hundred years is outside all reasonable measures of "natural variability", You could prove me wrong by showing data about natural variability that contradicts this.

The failed climate models are also failed models. So what.

Don't worry about explaining the graph to me. I'll explain it to you.

So since 1983 the temperature has risen .3 to .4 deg at the surface and in the low atmosphere compared to the ave for 1979 - 83. Of course 1979-1983 was already .15 to.2 deg above the 1960 to 1991 average, so while the models are wrong this graph hides the warming by using a baseline thats already approx .2 of a degree higher than the late 20th century baseline. that skews them and makes them look more wrong.

They people making these models reckon they will be better with new methods for accounting for ocean temps. that remains to be seen, but it is the nature of modelling things. As variables are understood the modelling becomes more accurate. It'll never be 100% accurate. No model ever is.

None the less this graph does show that the ave temp has increased by .35 to .4 deg above the mean for 1979 - 83 or .5 to .6 of a degree above the 1960 to 1990 mean. The models might be wrong but this graph shows warming, and funnily enough it shows most of it happening in the period since the significant warming was supposed to have stopped. Oh and there is nothing to suggest this warming is natural variability in the temperature record.

The models are wrong, but not in principle, just detail. In the absence of anything else that still leaves GHGs as the major cause of warming.

You ask that if the warming is not due to humans, what is it then? Simple...natural climate variability plus GHG....but the human contribution is not the predominate cause as you will eventually see if you are fair dinkum...

You ask how does that graph say anything about natural variability? Nothing....because at present, no one is able to determine quantitatively or qualitatively all of the variables involved in natural causes of climate change...but it is presumed to be in play always..eg volcanic dust, cloudiness...

So you think the use of the 1979-83 baseline on Dr Spencer's graph is hiding warming? Wrong! This baseline is used to allow temperature anomaly comparison between models and referenced observed temperature anomaly datasets. The baselines for the different datasets are not the same...for instance HadCRUT uses 1961-90 as their baseline, and UAH uses 1981-2010, so they can't be compared directly in that form. No sleight of hand there....

You say that the warming of the last hundred years is outside all reasonable measures of "natural variability"....not so...this graph shows natural variability during this interglacial.....


..the bolded black line is the average of eight different reconstruction of this present global interglacial period.

You admit the models are wrong, but not in principle, and believe that, in the absence of anything else, that still leaves GHGs as the major cause of warming. There more to it than that...the models are wrong in the direction of predicting higher warming based of GHG climate sensitivity than observed....now if this sensitivity is lowered to reflect reality....the resultant readjusted projected temperatures in the 21st century will be not be an alarming threat that requires urgent action on CO2 and the whole agw circus will come to an end.

Now the agw circus is not about to wind itself down now when world governments are talking about committing trillions of dollars in the fight again CO2 increases....but nevertheless...if temperature fail to start increasing again soon....the number of skeptics will grow dramatically.

[Joe Hillshoist]

The baselines for the different datasets are not the same...for instance HadCRUT uses 1961-90 as their baseline, and UAH uses 1981-2010, so they can't be compared directly in that form.

They can be cross referenced and compared.

This baseline is used to allow temperature anomaly comparison between models and referenced observed temperature anomaly datasets.

How - can you explain the process used? The period 1979 to 1983 actually matches an unusual spike in the 1960 - 91 baseline, and doen't even sit within the 1980 - 2010 baseline.

You say that the warming of the last hundred years is outside all reasonable measures of "natural variability"....not so...this graph shows natural variability during this interglacial.....

That hollow scene temp variations graph is also a scam.

Its repeated here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... ations.png

See whats missing?

The comparison to modern temperatures clearly showing them significantly higher than the ones in your graph and also significantly outside the range of natural variation over the last 10, 000 years. There is one potential argument/bit of evidence that might support your natural variation claim, do you know what it is, and why if its true action on GHGs is probably still very important?

You admit the models are wrong, but not in principle, and believe that, in the absence of anything else, that still leaves GHGs as the major cause of warming. There more to it than that...the models are wrong in the direction of predicting higher warming based of GHG climate sensitivity than observed....now if this sensitivity is lowered to reflect reality....the resultant readjusted projected temperatures in the 21st century will be not be an alarming threat that requires urgent action on CO2 and the whole agw circus will come to an end.

Wrt lowered sensitivity. You've just made an assumption based on what? There is nothing to say the inaccuracy of models or the actual adjusted models and accurate temps are themselves leading to lower than dangerous warming. Furthermore,

When the models are adjusted to reflect ocean temperatures and ocean heat storage they become much more accurate, as this paper shows.

[Elihu]

yall still arguin bout graphs n sh!it? u should b thinking about a way to get in the loot stream once this thing gets passed; or about how to keep from gettin drained by it(wellnighimpossible). mother nature could give a $^&*

[Iamwhomiam]

Good Christ, Ben - Spencer? Please!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer

Climate Scientists Debunk Latest Bunk by Denier Roy Spencer
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/07/29/282584/climate-scienists-debunk-latest-bunk-by-denier-roy-spencer/

And my all-time favorite, Testing Truth with an Open Mind
http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

You've got some nerve posting this crap after telling Joe he's not up to discussing the topic. You owe him an apology.

But in that you did, you would realize he accounts for the missing heat - it's flown the coop - straight into outer space.

[Ben D]

The baselines for the different datasets are not the same...for instance HadCRUT uses 1961-90 as their baseline, and UAH uses 1981-2010, so they can't be compared directly in that form.

They can be cross referenced and compared.

This baseline is used to allow temperature anomaly comparison between models and referenced observed temperature anomaly datasets.

How - can you explain the process used? The period 1979 to 1983 actually matches an unusual spike in the 1960 - 91 baseline, and doen't even sit within the 1980 - 2010 baseline.

You say that the warming of the last hundred years is outside all reasonable measures of "natural variability"....not so...this graph shows natural variability during this interglacial.....

That hollow scene temp variations graph is also a scam.

Its repeated here:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... ations.png

See whats missing?

The comparison to modern temperatures clearly showing them significantly higher than the ones in your graph and also significantly outside the range of natural variation over the last 10, 000 years. There is one potential argument/bit of evidence that might support your natural variation claim, do you know what it is, and why if its true action on GHGs is probably still very important?

You admit the models are wrong, but not in principle, and believe that, in the absence of anything else, that still leaves GHGs as the major cause of warming. There more to it than that...the models are wrong in the direction of predicting higher warming based of GHG climate sensitivity than observed....now if this sensitivity is lowered to reflect reality....the resultant readjusted projected temperatures in the 21st century will be not be an alarming threat that requires urgent action on CO2 and the whole agw circus will come to an end.

Wrt lowered sensitivity. You've just made an assumption based on what? There is nothing to say the inaccuracy of models or the actual adjusted models and accurate temps are themselves leading to lower than dangerous warming. Furthermore,

When the models are adjusted to reflect ocean temperatures and ocean heat storage they become much more accurate, as this paper shows.

The UAH satellite measurements began in 1979 and the graph is of 5 year runnings means so the first 5 year period is used as the base line...

Wrt Holocene graph....here is the latest one used in IPCC AR5 ....note the temperature anomaly (light blue) at the period of about 1000 AD...natural variability in action...no excessive human CO2 emissions in play...



Full story here...Climatology Sees One Of The Greatest Scientific Reversals Of All Time – The Rise And Fall Of The Hockey Stick Charts

With no increase in UAH global average temperature in over 18 years....while CO2 levels are at ever increasing record levels...the agw climate model predictions are deviating further and further from observed temperatures. If this continues for much longer, the agw crowd will have to concede that their estimated CO2 sensitivity used in their models is too high...and there will be no other option but to adjust downwards the sensitivity.

Any talk of tinkering with the models so that they get more accurate is fine....but the skeptics definition of accurate is that they reflect actual real observations, not just agw theory.....no warming for 18 years...

[Ben D]

yall still arguin bout graphs n sh!it? u should b thinking about a way to get in the loot stream once this thing gets passed; or about how to keep from gettin drained by it(wellnighimpossible). mother nature could give a $^&*

Ahhh..you're right on the ultimate uselessness of the arguin...cos mother nature will have the last laugh....but it is nice to think that the skeptics could bring the agw financial looting scam down with facts that unveil the deception of agw anti-science.

[Ben D]

Iam...so Dr Spencer is a Christian, that has nothing to do with his science....should you also out pious Jewish scientists, Islamic scientists, etc., who are agw skeptics?

[Joe Hillshoist]

Ben read the link above. When the models are adjusted to account for ENSO data they are accurate.

[Ben D]

Ben read the link above. When the models are adjusted to account for ENSO data they are accurate.

Oh yeah ...go check the graph of Dr Spencer's again and show me how the agw model projections fit precisely the UAH observed temperatures?