Climate change.

[Guest]

Do you really see no references in that article Ogre or are you just taking the mickey?

[Guest]

The one thing that we know for certain is that global warming didn’t cause the drought. That’s because there hasn’t been any.

There has been no drought???? No, just a minute , he means there has been no global warming (like trying to read one of OC's posts). What authority does he quote for that statement?

 

The world stopped getting warmer 17 years ago. That’s incontrovertible. As a result the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) scary projections have not been realised.

NO reference

 

Its best estimate in 1990 was a warming trend of 0.3 degrees a decade. The given range was 0.2-0.5. The actual trend has been 0.14-0.18. The warming didn’t happen.

Can't identify the subject of that sentence (Who or what is "it"?) - NO reference.

 

 

 

He also declared, “Put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and things warm up.” That’s the theory. But the real world hasn’t followed the theory.

NO reference

 

Roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon were added to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That’s about a quarter of all the CO₂ ever pumped out by the burning of fossil fuels. And the world’s temperature? No warming trend.

No reference

 

The fact is he is using the same squirrelly logic KM and others have accused the "other " side of the debate of using. Mixing it up with some emotive BS and selling it to a gullible public.

What am I talking about? - His entire argument is based on the statement that global temperatures haven't risen for a decade or so. I went looking for some facts (as he didn't supply any).

Have a look at the attached graph. He would seem to be correct. But if you look at the whole graph you would be hard pressed to say there has not been a warming trend, even though the levelling and/or drop since 2000 is clearly visible.

I've seen the "globasl warming deniers" say that the graphs the "global warming supporters" present were clipped to make the data look good. But by not using data pre 2000 RH is doing exactly the same.

[Guest]

Hmmmmm........

 

Can I ask if it indeed true that the Cookie Monster draw that graph?

[Guest]

The graph was found on this site

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... rming.html

 

as evidence that climate change was a myth. QED.

[Guest]

Here's a theory that is as credible as any written so far...

 

Most CO2 is emitted by the sea.

 

Thus sailors, by their wave forming actions, stir up the sea and thus create more CO2 emmisions than land lubbers.

 

Don't tell Russell Norman, aka labours spokesman for all fiscal and green policy, this.

 

Actually is'nt he a oxymoron if he talks fiscal policy and also wants a green country/economy?

 

CO2 is not a problem. trees love it. The issue is methane...

[idlerboat 116]

...I simply dont get the argument.

Highest co2 in 3 million years.

Do you realy care, or is it some wierd kind of personal justification.

It caused problems then.....(understated) on a global level so why wouldnt it know ?

I am so sick of the zealots who on one hand accept that "something" is happening, but at the same time refuse to do anything about it. They run around saying...not me ...and I object to doing stuff because it will (affect me) and not make any differance...it will effect the economy....it will make my kids lose jobs....

Humans arnt responsible...............?

 

Who gives a f*ck ! It is real...and we are in trouble.

What a sad load of selfish sh*t.

If we dont change our KIDS are going to have to deal with it....what sort of parents are we ?

 

so sick of this ,

and the next person who says the world systems is so huge and humans dont have any affect on it better not be around me....because rational debate seems to have no bearing....

I just may punch them in the head !

The fools of the economic rationalist refuse to put a final bottom line on a finite system. Thats our world dudes.

It is a closed system.........

time to grow up.

[Guest]

Yip! That should sort it idler boat. A good bit of biffo to change the climate.

 

I'll bet you we will still be talking the same rubbish in ten years and the experts will have all these theories and no solutions.

 

Solution to CO2 = plant trees that absorb the CO2 and plant them now... billions of them.

 

If Scientists can't sell this then they are just plain stupid.

[Guest]

I've been reading up on the background to this for a few years now, trying to figure it all out.

 

Currently: I'm more inclined to believe the scientists than the politicians (surprise). The scientists are more and more overwhelmingly in agreement that a) the levels of atmospheric CO2 is rising, that growth almost perfectly matches the growth in the use of fossil fuels - incredibly unlikely to be a coincidence, and the big one c) no one knows what the reults may be, but they could be very ugly (i often heard it referred to as a giant experiment).

And just for good measure d) they have only just started investigating the effects on the ocean and initial reports are not good.

 

And an observation of my own: It is very unlikely that humans have the collective intelligence to do anything other than what they are doing now, so they will continue shitting in their own nest till something truly horrendous happens by which time it will be way too late. In truth a growing number are already saying it is too late to stop nasty sh*t happening, the best you can do now is prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

[idlerboat 116]

Summer 2012-2013 heat records

 

The last seven months have been exceptional in terms of heat records.

 

During this period, Australia registered the warmest September–March on record, the hottest summer on record, the hottest month on record and the hottest day on record.

 

A record was also set for the longest national scale heatwave.

 

It was also the hottest summer on record for Australian sea-surface temperatures. Sea surface temperatures in February were the hottest ever recorded in the region, while January was the warmest on record for that month.

[Steve Pope 243]

And how many thousands of years have the Aussies been keeping records??

[Guest]

And how many thousands of years have the Aussies been keeping records??

spot on SP.

 

Scientists look at a tiny window and asses geograhphy experts on what they think happens. Then determine they have a understanding of a planet and solar systems records over millions of years. Time for a Tui and a billboard I think.

[Guest]

The one thing that we know for certain is that global warming didn’t cause the drought. That’s because there hasn’t been any.

There has been no drought???? No, just a minute , he means there has been no global warming (like trying to read one of OC's posts). What authority does he quote for that statement?

 

The world stopped getting warmer 17 years ago. That’s incontrovertible. As a result the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) scary projections have not been realised.

NO reference

 

Its best estimate in 1990 was a warming trend of 0.3 degrees a decade. The given range was 0.2-0.5. The actual trend has been 0.14-0.18. The warming didn’t happen.

Can't identify the subject of that sentence (Who or what is "it"?) - NO reference.

 

He also declared, “Put more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and things warm up.” That’s the theory. But the real world hasn’t followed the theory.

NO reference

 

Roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon were added to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That’s about a quarter of all the CO₂ ever pumped out by the burning of fossil fuels. And the world’s temperature? No warming trend.

No reference

 

The fact is he is using the same squirrelly logic KM and others have accused the "other " side of the debate of using. Mixing it up with some emotive BS and selling it to a gullible public.

What am I talking about? - His entire argument is based on the statement that global temperatures haven't risen for a decade or so. I went looking for some facts (as he didn't supply any).

Have a look at the attached graph. He would seem to be correct. But if you look at the whole graph you would be hard pressed to say there has not been a warming trend, even though the levelling and/or drop since 2000 is clearly visible.

I've seen the "globasl warming deniers" say that the graphs the "global warming supporters" present were clipped to make the data look good. But by not using data pre 2000 RH is doing exactly the same.

If it helps here is what most of RH is referring to, a Q&A chat with James Renwick. The other bit being the "Can't identify the subject of that sentence (Who or what is "it"?) - NO reference." is clearly just a continuation of the prior sentence about IPCC comments i.e the 'It's' is the IPCC. The IPCC is easy to find but a head f*ck of an obtuse website.

 

The Renwick interview video and the transcript - http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/corin-dann-interviews-dr-james-renwick-5370957

 

Have fun, make of it what you want but don't forget - A reference a day keeps a grumpy Ogre away

[wheels 543]

I thought Rodney's article was excellent by the way.

 

Is there Global Climate change??? Yes!! Always has been, always will be. (please note that many of the graphs I will display below are from the very same Science Institute that the News "Paper article" that Squid posted used. It's all in how the facts are reported)

So firstly, here are two graphs based on proven historical scientific research.

[wheels 543]

Note in the above, we have not been as hot yet as in the Earths past. Note that we have (based on the average weighting) actually peaked. That does not mean we don't experience hotter times. Interestingly 1934 still holds the Hottest temperatures ever recorded. It was a peak that did not serve to raise the weighted average.

Now note in this graph, the CO2 level in modern years has indeed spiked to record highs. Yet the temperature has not followed. In fact it has trended downwards against it.

[wheels 543]

Now here is a graph that is interesting ("Interesting" is what science should be. Interesting meaning it sparks further research, further discussion, Wonderment, question etc)Some researchers have stumbled upon this trend. One thing Science knows is that Weather on all planets is wildly influenced by external Galactical (is that a word?) influences. Earth is shielded by a lot of it due to our Magentosphere and atmosphere. But it is the Protection given from those that also cause them to alter. Could this be one or maybe even the cause of Global change. I'm not sure, but certainly it opens my mind that we are but a very small blip when it comes to the Cosmos.

[idlerboat 116]

Climate questions: Is there an inconsistency between observed and modelled patterns of warming in the lower atmosphere?

In Detail.

 

Evidence for warming in the troposphere

Consistency between observed and modelled temperature trends in the stratosphere and troposphere

 

Evidence for warming in the troposphere

 

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average land and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (IPCC, 2007, Ch 2; Domingues et al., 2008).

 

Temperatures in the troposphere have been measured using radiosondes (attached to weather balloons) and satellites.

 

Radiosonde data are available regionally from the 1940s, but the dataset is limited to land areas and coverage is poor over the tropics and southern hemisphere (IPCC, 2007, Ch 2).

 

The satellite data start in 1978 with global coverage every few days.

 

Changes in instrumentation and protocols affect both radiosonde and satellite records, and the inferred long-term temperature trends (IPCC, 2007, Ch 2).

 

It is difficult to determine which of these independently derived estimates of temperature is closer to the truth.

 

Considerable effort has been devoted to assessing and improving the quality of the radiosonde temperature record. This is more difficult than improving the satellite record because of greater uncertainty about changes in the radiosonde measurement system (Thorne et al, 2010).

 

Inhomogeneous behaviour can be caused by changes in site location, measurement time, instrumentation, and the effectiveness of thermal shielding of the temperature sensor (Santer et al., 2008).

 

A particular aim has been to reduce artificial changes arising from instrumental and procedural developments during the seven decades (1940s to 2000s) of recording (Free and Seidel, 2005; Thorne et al., 2005; Karl et al., 2006).

 

These efforts have resulted in various adjusted data sets (e.g. Figure 1).

 

Chart

 

Observed surface and upper-air temperature anomalies (°C). (A) Lower stratosphere T4, ( Troposphere T2, © Lower troposphere T2LT from UAH, RSS and VG2 MSU satellite analyses, and UKMO HadAT2 and NOAA RATPAC adiosonde records, and (D) surface records from NOAA, NASA-GISS and UKMO/CRU (HadCRUT2v). All time series are monthly mean anomalies relative to the period 1979 to 1997 smoothed with a seven month running mean filter. Major volcanic eruptions are indicated by vertical orange dashed lines. (Adapted from Karl et al., (2006); IPCC (2007) Figure 3.17).

 

Despite these efforts, recent analyses of radiosonde data indicate that large uncertainties remain (Lanzante and Free, 2008; Sherwood et al., 2008; McCarthy et al., 2008; Haimberger et al., 2008; Allen and Sherwood, 2008; Santer et al., 2008).

 

Satellite data have better spatial coverage than radiosondes, but data from a number of satellites must be merged together and known errors include (IPCC, 2007, Ch 2):

 

offsets in calibration between satellites

orbital decay and drift, and associated long-term changes in the time of day that the measurements are made at a particular location, leading to diurnal drifts in the estimated temperatures

drifts in satellite calibration that are correlated with the temperature of the onboard calibration target

 

Correcting for these errors removes much of the discrepancy between climate models and observed tropospheric temperatures.

 

Taking uncertainties into account, the range of global tropospheric warming since 1979 is 0.12 to 0.19°C per decade from satellite data, compared with a global surface warming of 0.16 to 0.18°C per decade (IPCC, 2007, Ch 2).

 

The large spread in satellite-based trends stems from differences in the inter-satellite calibration and merging techniques, and corrections for orbital drift and diurnal cycle change (IPCC, 2007, Ch 2).

Consistency between observed and modelled temperature trends in the stratosphere and troposphere

 

The lower stratosphere sits above the upper troposphere.

 

Lower stratospheric temperatures exhibit cooling of between 0.3°C and 0.6°C per decade since 1979.

 

Longer radiosonde records (since 1958) also indicate cooling but the rate of cooling has been significantly greater since 1979 than between 1958 and 1978.

 

It is likely that radiosonde records overestimate stratospheric cooling, owing to changes in instrumentation not yet accounted for (IPCC, 2007, Ch 2).

 

Because of the stratospheric warming episodes following major volcanic eruptions, the trends are far from linear (Figure 1).

 

Warming of the troposphere and cooling of the lower stratosphere is a ‘fingerprint’ of increased greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting chemicals.

 

This pattern is not, for example, a ‘fingerprint’ of an increase in radiation from the Sun, which would have warmed all levels of the atmosphere (IPCC, 2007, Ch 9).

 

The distinct pattern of tropospheric warming and lower stratospheric cooling is captured in all climate simulations of the 20th century driven by observed changes in solar radiation, volcanic aerosols, anthropogenic aerosols, greenhouse gases and ozone depletion.

 

The models cannot reproduce the pattern of warming and cooling based on natural changes alone (solar radiation and volcanic aerosols).

 

This is one of many late 20th century ‘fingerprints’ of an enhanced greenhouse effect due to human influences (IPCC, 2007, Ch 9).

 

Climate models also simulate what the vertical structure of temperature change within the troposphere should look like due to increasing greenhouse gases.

 

They predict that the lower troposphere should warm slightly more than the surface.

 

It is in this aspect of the vertical temperature profile that an apparent discrepancy between observations and models occurred (Karl et al., 2006).

 

Based on all other available evidence, scientists reasoned that either the models were incorrectly characterising the vertical structure of warming in the troposphere or that the observed datasets were biased (Karl et al., 2006; Douglass et al., 2007).

 

One analysis of 22 climate model simulations claimed poor agreement between the observed and modelled warming in the tropical troposphere, and concluded that the models were wrong (Douglass et al., 2007).

 

However, this was based on use of older radiosonde and satellite datasets, and on two methodological errors: the neglect of observational trend uncertainties introduced by interannual climate variability, and application of an inappropriate statistical consistency test (Santer et al., 2008).

 

Trends in bias-corrected tropical tropospheric temperature from two satellite datasets and 49 climate simulations have been compared (Santer et al., 2008).

 

The adjusted confidence interval on the satellite-based trend includes 47 of the 49 simulated trends.

 

This strongly suggests that there is no fundamental inconsistency between modelled and observed trends (Santer et al., 2008).

 

The agreement with models increases confidence in model-based predictions of future climate change (Allen and Sherwood, 2008).

 

Hence, the apparent discrepancy seems largely due to a number of data quality issues.

 

Most of these issues are related to calibration and interpretation of radiosonde and satellite instruments.

 

While the initial expectations of satellite derived data were high, in reality changes in instrumentation for different satellite missions, and factors such as slow changes in satellite orbits, have meant that interpreting the data has been difficult.

 

Compared with the surface based instruments, much less work has been done on understanding climate variables that are remotely sensed from space. There is no reasonable evidence of a fundamental disagreement between the tropospheric temperature trends from models and observations when uncertainties in both are treated comprehensively (Thorne et al., 2010).

 

Climate scientists do not believe that the remaining uncertainties regarding remotely sensed tropospheric temperature are large enough to alter the conclusion that increasing greenhouse gases have very likely been the main cause of the late 20th century warming. Rather, there are multiple lines of independent evidence that support this conclusion.

[wheels 543]

Soo...to condense that into some simple English. "We made a series of tests, but the Balloons didn't pop right, so we made some more tests and sent them up in a satellite, but the Sattellite didn't fly right either. So now we have a bunch of results that are probably flawed but not really sure".

 

One of the biggest causes to Global Warming, sorry I mean Global Climate Change, is Media. Classic NZ example is with Earthquakes. Slow News day and the news reports "3.5 quake rattles lower north islanders awake". Funny but friends down there knew nothing. Just yesterday a 4.5 happend north of Taupo. Nothing reported. A couple of days ago a 6.5 rocked Tonga and nothing was in the news. It depends on what news they have to report and what they want to make news.

Get rid of the media and the weather might return to normal.

[TimB 7]

"Get rid of the media and the weather might return to normal."

 

Absolutely classic, wheels, I, with your permission, would like to add this to my list of memorable quotes!!!

 

[wheels 543]

Your most welcome.

[Guest]

More irrefutable proof for you Ogre?

 

http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/8681809/Not-much-climate-change-doubt-in-science

 

WARNING: Do knot read the article if you have a calculator within arms reach, have any primary school kids with a very basic grip on maths close by or you yourself can do maths at any level higher than 1+2=3.