So about that climate "Pause"......

[bshole]

Lethal Seas


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/lethal-seas.html

Basically, CO2 is causing such a PH disruption in the ocean that plankton is not even forming shells correctly these days, which is one of the largest biomass's on the planet and the bottom of the food chain in the ocean.

That is even besides the obvious salinity issues and disruption of how the various streams operate.

Is just another environmental variable.

It is informative at any rate.

Acidification can't be all bad for all plankton. The successful species are flourishing. Failed species are gonna fail. That is nature's way.

A microscopic marine alga is thriving in the North Atlantic to an extent that defies scientific predictions, suggesting swift environmental change as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the ocean, a study led by a Johns Hopkins University scientist has found.
What these findings mean remains to be seen, as does whether the rapid growth in the tiny plankton's population is good or bad news for the planet.
Published today in the journal Science, the study details a tenfold increase in the abundance of single-cell coccolithophores between 1965 and 2010, and a particularly sharp spike since the late 1990s in the population of these pale-shelled floating phytoplankton.

http://hub.jhu.edu/2015/11/26/rapid-plankton-growth-could-signal-climate-change

 

[nickqt]

Acidification can't be all bad for all plankton. The successful species are flourishing. Failed species are gonna fail. That is nature's way.

Well, shit, lets gut all regulations regarding pollution and toxins in the air, water and soil.

I mean, it can't be all bad for all species. The successful species will flourish. Failed species are gonna fail. That is nature's way.

 

[ralfy]

"Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?"

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/global-warming-basics-whats-has-changed/

 

[Zorkorist]

Until liberals take responsibility for causing global warming, and accept Nuclear Power as the solution, there is very little to discuss.

-John

 

[nickqt]

Until liberals take responsibility for causing global warming, and accept Nuclear Power as the solution, there is very little to discuss.

-John

Until conservatives take responsibility for causing human suffering, and accept equality and civility in governance, there is very little to discuss.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

"Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?"

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/global-warming-basics-whats-has-changed/

Another alarmist website that completely neglects the pause, because they can't seem to explain it and it doesn't fit their narrative. Close your eyes, put your head down, and be like a bull instead. What pause? It's all straight lines rising. Besides that, what does Global Warming, aka Climate Change, really mean, regardless if it is AGW driven, a natural process, or a combination of the two?

Here's what it means. It means that the climate is changing and man, along with other species, need to adapt or perish. Some people seem to be of the belief that everything on Earth should always remain constant and nothing should ever inconvenience us. Well, it doesn't work that way. If man didn't cause changes eventually the earth/universe would, and we would still have to adapt, or perish.

Honestly, people are such twits about the whole climate fiasco. Adapt, or perish. It's that simple. One way or another it would eventually become a necessity. The hand-wringing needs to stop. We don't need to spend money to attempt to eliminate global warming. We need to spend money to adapt to the situation.

 

[nickqt]

Some people seem to be of the belief that everything on Earth should always remain constant and nothing should ever inconvenience us.

We call them conservatives.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

We call them conservatives.

Yet, typically, Climate Change alarmists are liberals.

Conservatives have their own issues, but both sides are douchebags. All they seem to want to do is butt heads against each other to prove their superiority over the other.

What a bunch of ego-driven claptrap. Y'all need to get over yourselves.

 

[Paratus]

Another alarmist website that completely neglects the pause, because they can't seem to explain it and it doesn't fit their narrative. Close your eyes, put your head down, and be like a bull instead. What pause? It's all straight lines rising. Besides that, what does Global Warming, aka Climate Change, really mean, regardless if it is AGW driven, a natural process, or a combination of the two?

Here's what it means. It means that the climate is changing and man, along with other species, need to adapt or perish. Some people seem to be of the belief that everything on Earth should always remain constant and nothing should ever inconvenience us. Well, it doesn't work that way. If man didn't cause changes eventually the earth/universe would, and we would still have to adapt, or perish.

Honestly, people are such twits about the whole climate fiasco. Adapt, or perish. It's that simple. One way or another it would eventually become a necessity. The hand-wringing needs to stop. We don't need to spend money to attempt to eliminate global warming. We need to spend money to adapt to the situation.

Yes we have to adapt. Climate science tells us how to adapt.

If you were the Mayor of Miami Beach with 400 million to spend on sea level abatement, how high would you raise the streets and sea walls? How many GPM of pumps will you need for the next 30 years?

Without climate science we will spend more on less effective adaption measures.

I've had a chance to look at about half the your links. Bob Tisdale, huh. He has a history of blowing some very basic physics. Ocean cycles like ENSO/ANSO cannot warm the planet while the ocean continues to warm without violating conservation of energy.

Already he's not showing any error bars in the IPCC models, reinterpreting them as he see fits and making misleading statements (Antartic sea ice increasing) etc. So I'm taking his blog posts with just a grain of salt.

He does have a point that models that don't model the cyclic ocean don't predict as well as ones that do:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/07/climate-models-that-accidentally-got-el-nino-right-also-show-warming-slowdown/

Of course, to a scientist, unmet expectations are an opportunity, so a variety of papers have looked into why this has happened. They've found that, while volcanic eruptions seem to have contributed to the relatively slow rise in temperatures, a major player has been the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which has been stuck in a cool, La Niña state for most of the last decade. And, since climate models aren't expected to accurately forecast each El Niño, there would be no reason to expect that they would match the actual atmospheric record.

At least not intentionally. But some researchers have found that, simply by chance, a few of the models do produce an accurate ENSO pattern. And when those models are examined in detail, it turns out they match the existing temperature record pretty well.

The issue the new paper examines comes down to the difference between long-term climate trends and intermediate-term variations. In the long-term, the state of the climate is set by things like solar activity, orbital mechanics, and greenhouse gas levels, among other things. But on shorter time scales, things like volcanic activity and ocean cycles can have a profound effect on temperatures.

Coupled climate models that include both the atmosphere and the oceans accurately reproduce the behavior of the major ocean cycles, including the ENSO. But, since the onset of changes in the ocean is chaotic, the models generally don't get the timing right—the model may show an El Niño starting three years earlier than it does in reality.

If you're interested in how the models behave over a specific part of the historic record, that mismatch can be a problem, but there are several approaches to dealing with it. You can, for example, subtract out the influence of things like volcanoes and ocean circulation to see what the climate is doing without them. Or, rather than letting your model generate its own ENSO, you can force it to replay historic events in order to see what those do to the temperatures.

The new paper adds an additional approach to handling the problem: simply run a bunch of models and pick those that, by accident, accurately reproduced the ocean's chaotic behavior. The authors started with the CMIP5 collection of climate models and selected the 18 models that include an ocean simulation that's sophisticated enough to provide data on the state of ENSO and other ocean behavior. They started these 18 models in 1880 and used historical forcings (solar activity, greenhouse gas concentrations, etc.) up until 2005, then switched to a standard emission scenario until stopping the models in 2012.

If you look at the four models that were the worst at reproducing ENSO behavior, then you'd think climate modelers were incompetent, as these models all showed rapid warming from 1990 onward. But, if you picked the four that had the best match to real-world ENSO data, then you see exactly what reality produced: a relatively slow rate of warming starting at about the beginning of the century.

So maybe the issue here isn't our understanding of what is happening and why but exactly how good or bad our modeling can be.

 

[nickqt]

Yet, typically, Climate Change alarmists are liberals.

Conservatives have their own issues, but both sides are douchebags. All they seem to want to do is butt heads against each other to prove their superiority over the other.

What a bunch of ego-driven claptrap. Y'all need to get over yourselves.

Liberals are arguing that humans need to adapt to a new environment, by first not continuing to destroy the one we already have. What a bunch of ego-driven claptrap!

Instead, if we just elect Strongman Trump, he'll just tell the climate to stop changing. You know, to Make America Great Again.

 

[Zorkorist]

Aight, let's turn your house into rubble.

We need to mellow emissions into the atmosphere, and that means Nuclear Power.

Once you are down with that, we can talk.

-John

 

[Zorkorist]

We can export Nuclear Power all over the world. and especially to the parts of the world that make campfires for dinner.

-John

 

[pcgeek11]

" Attorney General Loretta Lynch has 'considered taking legal action against climate change deniers "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...al-action-against-climate-change-deniers.html

But Obama's administration is going to sue them evil climate change deniers.

What a load. It isn't the same as the tobacco industry.

 

[Paratus]

" Attorney General Loretta Lynch has 'considered taking legal action against climate change deniers "

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...al-action-against-climate-change-deniers.html

But Obama's administration is going to sue them evil climate change deniers.

What a load. It isn't the same as the tobacco industry.

In exxons case it's exactly the same. They got there own scientists to investigate. Found out the truth. Didn't like what it was and what it would do to their bottom line so they started spreading FUD.

 

[Zorkorist]

Just exactly what a Government would do....

-John

 

[pcgeek11]

In exxons case it's exactly the same. They got there own scientists to investigate. Found out the truth. Didn't like what it was and what it would do to their bottom line so they started spreading FUD.

Nothing is proven depending on who you want to listen to.

 

[GoPackGo]

From my perspective the US has done quite a lot.

Through tax credits there have been incentives for:

Solar Energy
Better insulated windows
Better insulated homes
More efficient home heaters

Our public utility also gives rebates for CFL & LED Lighting. More efficient air conditioners and other appliances.

There are also electric and hybrid cars.

In my town you see the Prius everywhere.

There are also wind farms in my state.

The county lets you turn in household quantities of toxins for free (paint etc.)

Is there more to do? Yes. Will everything happen overnight? No.

I think the message needs to change. Go with what people know and what people want:

Clean Air
Clean Water
Clean Soil

Bring back "Give a Hoot Don't Pollute" PSA's and talk about more then just throwing trash along the side of the road.

 

[Jaskalas]

Ocean cycles like ENSO/ANSO cannot warm the planet while the ocean continues to warm without violating conservation of energy.

A proper explanation to account for the extra heat is sorely missing from opponents. Most of it must remain rooted in the notion that all data except Satellite is corrupted... or that the proxies of the past are poorly done, that there's some great cycle of heat exchange missing from the "big picture" where we had seemingly cooled off at some point and are naturally rebounding from it.

The whole AMO/PDO notion is based on all that.
Then there's our very recent escape from the clutches of the Little Ice Age.

It looks very much like all we have left is grasping at straws.

 

[Paratus]

So despite what I've heard from some on this board that temperature records that are adjusted are only done so for political reasons. That the satellite record is the gold standard and any adjustments required were already completed.

Well apparently a few more adjustments were needed:

New RSS dataset shows end of pause

Previous versions of the RSS dataset have used a diurnal climatology derived from general circulation model output to remove the effects of drifting local measurement time. In this paper, we present evidence that this previous method is not sufficiently accurate, and present several alternative methods to optimize these adjustments using information from the satellite measurements themselves. These are used to construct a number of candidate climate data records using measurements from 15 MSU and AMSU satellites. The new methods result in improved agreement between measurements made by different satellites at the same time. We choose a method based on an optimized second harmonic adjustment to produce a new version of the RSS dataset, Version 4.0. The new dataset shows substantially increased global-scale warming relative to the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998.

This abstract was done before the current uptick in 2016.

 

[Jaskalas]

RSS distinctly shows a pause.
Up from a cooling trend.

It's a lot more believable now, and more in line with UAH.

 

[OverVolt]

"Global Warming Basics: What Has Changed?"

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/03/04/global-warming-basics-whats-has-changed/

Yes the charts go up, very scientific.

If only anybody knew what it meant in context of the climate, which they don't.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...s-defying-global-warming-models/#66306aa12b45

I found that interesting because it blows a rather large hole in the amplified greenhouse gas effect due to rising atmospheric H2O in lockstep with atmospheric CO2 considering that H2O is a much more potent greenhouse gas. The idea being that hotter air of course holds more moisture and thus traps more heat, which is apparently not the case. Surprise! But I will give you that the lines go up. Good job. Now use your 8th grade running averages to accurately predict anything. Good luck.

 

[OverVolt]

So despite what I've heard from some on this board that temperature records that are adjusted are only done so for political reasons. That the satellite record is the gold standard and any adjustments required were already completed.

Well apparently a few more adjustments were needed:

New RSS dataset shows end of pause

This abstract was done before the current uptick in 2016.

I'm assuming the green line is the adjustment from baseline. Would be interested in how they arrived at that conclusion.

Literally UAH doing the same diurnal adjustments but instead doing it using an empirically based approach rather than a climate modeled approach actually brings them more in line with RSS.

http://www.reportingclimatescience....is-brings-uah-temperatures-closer-to-rss.html

So you're telling me after 30 years people can't even stop arguing about the temperature (Evidence #1) and you want to give me a climate sensitivity prediction 50 years from now. Okay.

 

[Paratus]

Yes the charts go up, very scientific.

If only anybody knew what it meant in context of the climate, which they don't.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...s-defying-global-warming-models/#66306aa12b45

I found that interesting because it blows a rather large hole in the amplified greenhouse gas effect due to rising atmospheric H2O in lockstep with atmospheric CO2 considering that H2O is much more potent greenhouse gas. The idea being that hotter air of course holds more moisture and thus traps more heat, which is apparently not the case. Surprise! But I will give you that the lines go up. Good job. Now use your 8th grade running averages to accurately predict anything. Good luck.

I'm not sure what the Forbes guy is on about. It looks like he's linking to denier sites and old papers.

Humidity has been increasing but tends to be much more transient

 

[Paratus]

I'm assuming the green line is the adjustment from baseline. Would be interested in how they arrived at that conclusion.

Literally UAH doing the same diurnal adjustments but instead doing it using an empirically based approach rather than a climate modeled approach actually brings them more in line with RSS.

http://www.reportingclimatescience....is-brings-uah-temperatures-closer-to-rss.html

So you're telling me after 30 years people can't even stop arguing about the temperature (Evidence #1) and you want to give me a climate sensitivity prediction 50 years from now. Okay.

People still argue about vaccines, evolution, the age of the Earth and even whether it's a sphere or not. As you've indicated above, since those people are still arguing, I'll assume you are keeping an open mind about living on a 6000 year old flat Earth where all species were created as they are and vaccines cause autism. 😉

 

[bshole]

Yes we have to adapt. Climate science tells us how to adapt.

If you were the Mayor of Miami Beach with 400 million to spend on sea level abatement, how high would you raise the streets and sea walls? How many GPM of pumps will you need for the next 30 years?

.

Laughing my ass off. How was that land created in the first place?

The vulnerability of the low-lying western edge of the "billion dollar sandbar’’ — real estate that pioneering developer Carl Fisher literally dredged up from Biscayne Bay —is topped only by the Florida Keys, where even a half-foot more ocean will inundate large chunks of some islands like Big Pine.

For fucks sake, they built the land in the first place by dredging. That should provide a clue as to the path forward. Bunch of fucking rich pricks anyways. I hope they lose it all with NO compensation. They deserve every damn thing that comes to them. I just know these parasites will stick the taxpayer for their incomprehensible decadence... rich pricks always do.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/loc...iami-beach/article41141856.html#storylink=cpy​

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article41141856.html