Buying a climatologist just ain't what it used to be

[destrekor]

I made one with the absolute numbers too, see above.

"Even a ten degree change"? The difference between 2011-1959 is ~0.44 degrees Celcius or an increase of ~0.16%. The chart says a thing or two about how important CO2 is compared to other factors.

I'll make one for you with a manipulated Y-axis, just a sec.

That's almost an entire degree Fahrenheit, in approx 50 years.

If you don't understand how drastic that actually is, and, if that trend were continue, what effects it will produce, then you don't understand the data that is staring you straight in the face.

Also, pay close attention to the actual rate of change in the trends, and how they have occurred in relation to the rate of greenhouse gas additions.
Gas concentrations have been rising steadily for awhile, but it seemed to have taken a little while for it to actually impact temperature. But now that it IS impacting temperature, how much that happens continue to rise.

Two degrees Fahrenheit of change, or just over 1ºC, could significantly alter local climate patterns. Things like precipitation, temperature, winds, storm generation, storm tracks, etc.. every region in the world is essentially connected to its neighbors in terms of climate patterns. Every regional climate pattern feeds on other patterns, because there are overall circulatory loops/belts. You change one variable in a statistically significant fashion, things can start changing.

What remains to be seen, because scientists are still trying to wrap their heads around the concepts, is at what point the trigger is pulled, and what will be the blast radius.

 

[MrMuppet]

Wow. Pretty cool way to make a graph look like you want to.

Since creating a chart without rigged axes was not very appreciated at all, here's a rigged one for you guys:

Obviously, a chart like this can be made for any two curves/variables that both have increased at all. The interesting thing about the unrigged charts is that they hint at the importance carbon dioxide levels have for our climate.

The fluctuation in temperature is interesting and the very small relative increase in temperature could be down to anything really (natural causes, or the famous decrease in piracy). I obviously don't know, I just found it interesting with an unbiased chart.

 

[0roo0roo]

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/stories/2011/10/04/3331828.htm

 

[MrMuppet]

No comments? I thought I'd appease you guys and get some praise by creating a disingenuous chart like you're used to.

Here's an interesting chart I found:

Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate
E. FRIIS-CHRISTENSEN, K. LASSEN
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/254/5032/698.abstract
(Full: http://files.klimaskeptik.cz/200000019-aeec9afe66/christensen.pdf)

Which chart does ATOT think does the better job at explaining the observed temperature anomalies?

 

[Pr0d1gy]

I blame the sun going into it's supernova phase, it obviously isn't greenhouse gasses poluting our atmosphere and trapping heat inside at all. At all. Surely it is a solar flare. Or someone left their EasyBake Oven on too long...

 

[MrMuppet]

So here's the thing. We know carbon dioxide levels will rise, since we're burning fossil fuels. That outcome is known beforehand.

We also know that the global temperature fluctuates a lot over time (we even have ice ages). This is normal and it's to be expected that we'll see temperatures rising (and decreasing) slightly over time. Completely natural climate change is an outcome known beforehand.

This means that all it takes is for one variable (temperature) to happen to increase (rather than decrease) ever so slightly (even if it's completely natural) for people to scream "anthropogenic global warming", although the increase may be mostly or even virtually only naturogenic in nature.

Since 1959 CO2 levels have risen by almost 24%. Temperature has only risen by ~0.16% and does not seem to follow the CO2 curve very closely. Moreover CO2 does not explain the massive fluctuations, so we know other factors at play are at least responsible for that. However, since they're both increasing, you can very easily manipulate a chart to make it look like CO2 is the cause. It may or may not be.

I'm not sure how credible zfacts.com is, but right now looks like 1700 but inverse:

 

[oynaz]

No comments? I thought I'd appease you guys and get some praise by creating a disingenuous chart like you're used to.

Here's an interesting chart I found:

Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate
E. FRIIS-CHRISTENSEN, K. LASSEN
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/254/5032/698.abstract
(Full: http://files.klimaskeptik.cz/200000019-aeec9afe66/christensen.pdf)

Which chart does ATOT think does the better job at explaining the observed temperature anomalies?

Your graph ends in 1985. The temperature graph above goes from 1959 to 2010. This makes your graph useless in this context.

 

[MrMuppet]

Further no warming has occurred since 1998:

"Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008."

Your graph ends in 1985. The temperature graph above goes from 1959 to 2010. This makes your graph useless in this context.

No, it does not. The graphs reveal how closely the different variables correlate with temperature. The Science study is from 1991 so you really can't expect more.

edit: And my graphs are the ones going from 1959 to 2010. 🙂

 

[MrMuppet]

If the sun was mostly responsible for climate change, it would allow for a prediction to be made: other planets in our solar system should be experiencing climate change as well. Well, do they?

Global warming on Mars:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/new...20031208a.html
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

"New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change":
http://www.space.com/2071-storm-jupiter-hints-climate-change.html

"Pluto is undergoing global warming":
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

"Global warming on Neptune's largest moon":
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/triton.html

 

[oynaz]

So here's the thing. We know carbon dioxide levels will rise, since we're burning fossil fuels. That outcome is known beforehand.

Agreed, which will in mean an increase in temperature - its just a question of how much.

We also know that the global temperature fluctuates a lot over time (we even have ice ages). This is normal and it's to be expected that we'll see temperatures rising (and decreasing) slightly over time. Completely natural climate change is an outcome known beforehand.

Agreed.

This means that all it takes is for one variable (temperature) to happen to increase (rather than decrease) ever so slightly (even if it's completely natural) for people to scream "anthropogenic global warming", although the increase may be mostly or even virtually only naturogenic in nature.

You make it sound like the temperature changes are the only evidence for man-made global warming. That is not the case.

Since 1959 CO2 levels have risen by almost 24%. Temperature has only risen by ~0.16% and does not seem to follow the CO2 curve very closely.

You are assuming a linear relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. That is not a valid assumption.

Moreover CO2 does not explain the massive fluctuations, so we know other factors at play are at least responsible for that. However, since they're both increasing, you can very easily manipulate a chart to make it look like CO2 is the cause. It may or may not be.

Again, you are assuming that the climate change is only predicted based on co2 levels and temperature levels. Still not the case.

I'm not sure how credible zfacts.com is, but right now looks like 1700 but inverse:

Interesting, and I hope you are right - that this thing is mostly natural. Unfortunately, there is a general consensus among people who does this for a living, and they agree that the climate change is man-made to a substantial degree. I have yet to see a credible study showing otherwise.

But why are we even having this discussion? The main way to lessen the climate change is to rely less on fossil fuels, and rely more on sustainable energy sources. Unless you are an Arab sheik, there is absolutely no reason why this is not a good idea.

Changing the energy infrastructure to rely more on renewable energy will:

- Lessen pollution
- Relieve the pressure on the world's dwindling fossil fuel reserves
- Give a more robust energy infrastructure due to decentralization
- Lessen reliance on oil exporting countries which tend to be notoriously unstable (sorry, Norway)
- Lessen the effect of climate change

Even if you do not believe in climate change (which still baffles me), there is still a number of good reasons to implement the changes suggested in order to lessen it.

 

[MrMuppet]

Well, someone made the thread and I just thought it was interesting. In case it wasn't clear enough, when I wrote "and does not seem to follow the CO2 curve very closely" I meant the great fluctuations here:

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/2451/climatechangeabsrigged8.png

Compared with the one from Science:

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/7105/suncyclelengthvstempera.png

People on a payroll are on a payroll. Then there are "true believers" (much like there are fanboys, I guess). And climategate and all that. Let me see if I can find that quote...

edit: Here it is:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"

That was said/written by Kevin E. Trenberth, IPCC Lead Author. Leaked at climategate. A true believer would put it like that, but not a "true" scientist.

 

[oynaz]

Further no warming has occurred since 1998:

"Given the widely noted increase in the warming effects of rising greenhouse gas concentrations, it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008."

From the conclusion:

"The finding that the recent hiatus in warming is driven largely by natural factors does not contradict the hypothesis: “most of the observed increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations (14).”"

 

[oynaz]

Well, someone made the thread and I just thought it was interesting. In case it wasn't clear enough, when I wrote "and does not seem to follow the CO2 curve very closely" I meant the great fluctuations here:

http://img560.imageshack.us/img560/2451/climatechangeabsrigged8.png

Compared with the one from Science:

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/7105/suncyclelengthvstempera.png

People on a payroll are on a payroll. Then there are "true believers" (much like there are fanboys, I guess). And climategate and all that. Let me see if I can find that quote...

edit: Here it is:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"

That was said/written by Kevin E. Trenberth, IPCC Lead Author. Leaked at climategate. A true believer would put it like that, but not a "true" scientist.

Fair enough.

 

[richaron]

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't"

That was said/written by Kevin E. Trenberth, IPCC Lead Author. Leaked at climategate. A true believer would put it like that, but not a "true" scientist.

You obv's don't know many fanatical scientists; they all thirst for knowledge, & blame themselves for ~supposed~ shortcomings.

This thread is another example of a few loudmouths pretending there is still a real debate about global warming. I would recommend people listen to the VAST majority of experts.

 

[yhelothar]

honestly it doesn't matter because they have no workable solutions😛

Geoengineering is working towards one with a few approaches.
Here's one...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg7J8P-uXqM

It's amazing what geoengineering can do... like make rain clouds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlX7rJv_m0g&feature=fvwrel

and some more info on others.
http://www.groundreport.com/World/Climate-Change-Global-Warming-A-Case-For-Geoengine/2942340

Hopefully they won't be opening Pandora's box. 😱

 

[soulcougher73]

I dont know one oway or another. But i do know that in the 15 yeas ive been in KS the winters keep getting warmer and the summers hotter. But we should take steps to reduce what we emite into the atmosphere one way or another.

 

[soulcougher73]

I blame the sun going into it's supernova phase, it obviously isn't greenhouse gasses poluting our atmosphere and trapping heat inside at all. At all. Surely it is a solar flare. Or someone left their EasyBake Oven on too long...

Well clearly we need Mega Maid to suck the greenhouse gases from our atmosphere. Its the only way to be sure.

 

[oynaz]

Geoengineering is working towards one with a few approaches.
Here's one...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fg7J8P-uXqM

It's amazing what geoengineering can do... like make rain clouds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlX7rJv_m0g&feature=fvwrel

and some more info on others.
http://www.groundreport.com/World/Climate-Change-Global-Warming-A-Case-For-Geoengine/2942340

Hopefully they won't be opening Pandora's box. 😱

Or you could:

Insulate your house
Get a fuel-efficient car when the time comes to replace your current, and perhaps use the bike for short trips
Cut 10% off your meat consumption
Think in terms of power efficiency when buying electronics in the future
Make an effort to stop wasting power (turn off unneeded light, unplug unneeded gizmos, etc.)

If this became the norm, it would make a huge difference.

 

[lupi]

I would think before starting with the "full of shit" fallacy approach you should have a better clue where someone lives.

 

[CZroe]

I would think before starting with the "full of shit" fallacy approach you should have a better clue where someone lives.

Who are you talking to/about?

 

[artvscommerce]

Well clearly we need Mega Maid to suck the greenhouse gases from our atmosphere. Its the only way to be sure.

Colonel Sandurz: It's Mega Maid. She's gone from suck to blow.

 

[bigdog1218]

You obv's don't know many fanatical scientists; they all thirst for funding, & blame themselves for ~supposed~ shortcomings.

This thread is another example of a few loudmouths pretending there is still a real debate about global warming. I would recommend people listen to the VAST majority of experts.

Fixed that for you. If you're naive enough to think scientists are just about science I have global warming research to sell you.

 

[CZroe]

dp

 

[clamum]

I tend to agree with MrMuppet and mmntech.

 

[Paul98]

MrMuppet do you expect the percentage change in temperature to be somewhere remotely close to the same scale as the percentage change in CO2 if global warming is real?

Scale matters, if you can't really see any variation in a graph due to it's scale where a small change makes a large difference you really need to change it's scale.