Sins Forums
What happened to Global Warming?
When I put my first above ground pool in around the late 90's we were able to open it in April and start swimming in May.
Now my pool is just opened and still not warm enough to swim in 
I'd like some global warming back...
I think I've finally found an article that shows the influence of greenhouse gases on the climate more clearly.
I just hope this doesn't turn out to be just another hype, because you never know.
Don't think it's hype at all. No reason to doubt that cataclysmic climate change can occur 'cataclysmically'. Doesn't shed much, if any, light on our current circumstances and has no bearing on AGW. But certainly supports the common sense notion that when Yellowstone goes, things are gonna change around here right quick.
Sorry, but this just has to be posted. Enjoy.
EDIT: iPad doesn't embed links properly it would appear. Will correct from PC shortly.
Hahaha, I LMFAO 
That's right... and my doctor won't prescribe anything to fix it. These hot and cold flushes all the time, dammit, it's like being in the Antarctic and having frequent bursts of hot tropical air arrive at irregular intervals to upset my rhythm.
I keep saying to my doctor that HRT helped my mother with hot and cold flushes during her change of life.... and she keeps saying: "No, you'll develop breasts". Like I freakin' care! I can already fill a 42D-Cup with my man boobs. So what if I have to upsize to a 44DD... gimme the damned pills.
Oh, and yeah, climactic change does sound a bit rude, don't it? Just as well I wasn't, then... otherwise the typos would have been flowing thick n' fast.
Why not? What I have to say is as relevant as what anyone else has to say. I mean, the topic largely consists of peoples opinions anyhow... and how they choose to skew the data to validate theirs.
One thing I'm thankful for, though, is that I'm not young enough to know it all... and that my age derived gut feelings tell me when somebody's trying to feed me bullshit and tell me it's chocolate cake.... and Global warming IS bullshit.
Having said that, however, I do wish industry would clean up its act because it genuinely cares about the environment. As teenagers during the 70's my friends and I would go to a local creek to swim during the summer months, but now that creek is so filthy and polluted from local factories spilling their waste into it, I wouldn't throw my worst enemy into it for fear they'd die of toxic poisoning, bloat up and refuse to sink [despite the concrete boots] thus leaving the evidence for all to see..
Nah, seriously, I'd be worried about getting splashed.
Thing is, that creek was a great place for families to cool off on a hot Summer's day, but I could not take my kids there, nor can I take my grandkids there because the waters pose serious health risks. It's only one of dozens of local waterways that have become so polluted they pose dangers to life/all living creatures, and it's a scenario that's being repeated across the globe, so yeah, I want industry to clean up its act as much as anyone else who cares about their environment.
'climactic' - of or pertaining to - climax... [no, I didn't have to look it up].
'climatic' - of or pertaining to - climate ....;)
Oh great...the argument of democracy....as if the previous arguments weren't bad enough....
Didn't have to look it up, either... not that climactic pertains to me as often these days.
Hmmm, nowadays it takes me all night to do what I used to do all night.
So your 60 years of observations completely rule out the possibility of warming in the coming centuries? Have you seen something that shows that the entire scientific community is just on a wild goose chase?
I think it's more accurate to say the topic consists of a massive amount of evidence that there is widespread scientific agreement on. Yes, of course everyone can and does have their opinion. This isn't a subjective sort of question or issue though, like say, "Do you prefer Cabernet Franc or Pinot Noir?" No, fortunately, when it comes to science, not all opinions are equal. If I go to the doctor and he shows me some diagnostic imaging or biopsy test results showing I have cancer, I will value his opinion over, say, a chiropractor's, or my neighbour's. I can also do my own reading or get a second medical opinion to see if the doctor is following best practices. Just out of curiosity...who is "they" and what data did they specifically skew? How do you know this? Do you think all science works with scientists having opinions first and then committing fraudulent research (on an epic scale in this case) that no one but laymen ever picks up on or is it just the science in this instance? Do you feel you are fairly well-read on the research itself or are you basing your conclusions on various second-hand opinions you've liked the sound of while browsing the internet?
I always find it funny when people mention volcanoes or sun activity as a way to (fingers crossed) rule out AGW. That maybe this person has stumbled upon such an obvious and easy answer that none of the scientists involved ever thought of. But, oh wait, they did.
Just curious, Ekko. How many years of flat temps in the face of rising CO2 would it take to weaken your conviction that anthropogenic CO2 is the driver of temperature? What's the threshold for deciding the models are not up to the job? Also, did you by chance look at the video I linked about the finite limitations of computer modeling (reply #1770)?
Good question. Depends what "flat temps" means. If it meant atmosphere, ocean, reversal of loss of Arctic ice and rising sea levels, etc. (in other words, all the places where increased heat in the system can manifest) for a couple of decades then I would start to wonder what was going on. You seem unperturbed by all the evidence of more decades than that though...
Unrelated to the question but had to share:
That is probably the most inaccurate thing you've said here to date. There is little evidence among the huge volumes of data that scientists have been paid to agree upon. Much of this global warming/climate change 'evidence' is based on computer modeling and can in no way be considered accurate because the results depend wholly on the data fed into it... and if that data is opinionated, incorrect or just plain wrong, then the results are just hypotheses... what ifs.
As for real world models, the science of collecting, measuring and comparing climatic conditions is relatively new and still has much work to truly evaluate the data collected thus far. Sure they can compare temperatures to those recorded in the past, but many different contributing factors come into play and those records can not be considered complete of accurate because the meteorological scientists did not have the resources we have today at their disposal. Until all that data can be accurately collated and interpreted, it's pretty much a hit and miss affair with oodles of guesswork and suppose so's.
Oh, and with regard to my so-called guessing about volcanoes having huge impact on climate fluctuations [er, climate change], do you honestly believe the Reykjavik volcano in Iceland had no impact on the world's climate when it erupted in May 2011... or by the ash plume of 2010? Or that subterranean volcanos off Indonesia, Japan and Hawaii have had no influence whatsoewer in warming the Pacific, thus contributing to rising sea levels? You see, for every action there is a reaction, and for every scientific explanation suggesting mankind caused 'climate change', there are natural events that also explain it... if not better..
Anyhow, I'm off to see if I can effect a climactic change. 
Good cartoon, Ekko. But you're dodging the question. AGW theory is about nothing but rising global temperature due to the impact of increased atmospheric CO2 concentration, not heat 'disappearing' into previously unknown or underestimated heat sinks.
I'm sure there is a 'conspiracy theory' in there somewhere
Always great fun to read Starkers
No, it isn't. Where did you get that idea from? It's about our effect in changing the climate of the planet. True, CO2 release is a big part of this, but there are many other human actitivies that contribute to climate change. It's definitely not just about measuring atmospheric temperatures over time if that's what you're getting at. You can't simply ignore changes in the ocean or the Arctic.
What's the scientific basis for "a couple of decades". Why not a few decades? Or one more? or a century?
True enough, the science involves all those things and no doubt many more. The political consequences of the science involve demands entirely based on reduction in CO2 production (in reality, simply taxing CO2 production), it being the alleged principle driver or threat. You know that perfectly well, but are being a little disingenuous.
Climate models of today are, in principle, better than their predecessors. However, every bit of added complexity, while intended to improve some aspect of simulated climate, also introduces new sources of possible error (e.g., via uncertain parameters) and new interactions between model components that may, if only temporarily, degrade a model’s simulation of other aspects of the climate system. Furthermore, despite the progress that has been made, scientific uncertainty regarding the details of many processes remains. An important consideration is that model performance can only be evaluated relative to past observations, taking into account natural internal variability. To have confidence in the future projections of such models, historical climate—and its variability and change—must be well-simulated. The scope of model evaluation, in terms of the kind and quantity of observations available, the availability of better coordinated model experiments, and the expanded use of various performance metrics, has provided much more quantitative information about model performance. But this alone may not be sufficient. Whereas weather and seasonal climate predictions can be regularly verified, climate projections spanning a century or more cannot. This is particularly the case as anthropogenic forcing is driving the climate system toward conditions not previously observed in the instrumental record, and it will always be a limitation.
Quantifying model performance is a topic that has featured in all previous IPCC Working Group I Reports. Reading back over these earlier assessments provides a general sense of the improvements that have been made. Past reports have typically provided a rather broad survey of model performance, showing differences between model-calculated versions of various climate quantities and corresponding observational estimates. Inevitably, some models perform better than others for certain climate variables, but no individual model clearly emerges as ‘the best’ overall. Recently, there has been progress in computing various performance metrics, which synthesise[sic] model performance relative to a range of different observations according to a simple numerical score. Of course, the definition of such a score, how it is computed, the observations used (which have their own uncertainties), and the manner in which various scores are combined are all important, and will affect the end result.
Final Draft (7 June 2013) Chapter 9 IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report
So the most we can ask a climate model to do is recreate or 'fit' the past. I refer you again to the link in reply 1770. As well as to reply 1772.
A while back I explained that the pause could be caused by ocean oscillations.
But this could also be the reason for it: aerosols!
Now we all know how much smog China and India produce every day. This produces extra clouds and therefore extra cooling.
This discusses the cooling between 1940 and 1970 and tries to explain it all in terms of aerosols.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=267
Unfortunately I couldn't find a nice aerosol graph all the way to 2014. I did read an article earlier which noted relatively high levels of aerosols in the stratosphere at the moment but that's not as nice as a real graph (and those don't cause cloud formation). I've also read that aerosol emissions by China are on the decline because of stricter regulation ... what will that mean for global temperatures? We'll just have to wait and see.
So what's causing these pauses?!
Is it the 50/60-year ocean oscillation? An oceanographer would tell you so.
It is aerosols? A meteorologist would tell you so.
Or it is all because of the sun? An astronomer would tell you so.
Or is it a bit of everything? A climatologist would tell you so, but at the moment he doesn't know the relative contributions.
It's hard to get a good grip on this matter if there are so many scientists who try to explain how the world works from just their own perspective.
This article is also interesting, it puts current warming of the oceans in a bigger context:
http://news.rutgers.edu/research-news/global-warming-viewed-deep-ocean/20131031#.Us5IeNA1iUk
I quote their conclusion: "Our work showed that intermediate waters in the Pacific had been cooling steadily from about 10,000 years ago” said Linsley. This places the recent warming of Pacific intermediate waters in temporal context. The trend has now reversed in a big way and the deep ocean is warming"
And another quote:
"We may have underestimated the efficiency of the oceans as a storehouse for heat and energy,” Rosenthal said. “It may buy us some time – how much time, I don’t really know – to come to terms with climate change"
http://www.livescience.com/42435-slowdown-in-global-warming-a-mirage.html
So we had oceanographer, meteorologists, astronomists and to add to my list of confusion we now have:
It's all due to a sampling bias in the Arctic region, a statistician would say. There is no pause in the global warming trend.
is this thread a joke? I can prove global warming in 15 minutes in a high school chemistry class.
Wat? Disingenuous you say?
Daaawwww look at you two coolcats scoring points with each other...so cute.
I tried watching the first 5-10 minutes and it was just innuendo and anecdotes. Maybe you can take 5 minutes to summarize what you gleaned from it to spare me an hour.
I'm guessing you are preoccupied at the moment with climate models because they are touted as the basis for future predictions and so, political/economic changes. Someone famous once said "All models are wrong, but some are useful" and that holds true here as well. You're never going to find a perfect reality simulator - especially not in areas like climate or astro-physics. However, most climate models use Bayes’ theorem - and so they improve and become more accurate over time. They will still never give certainty though. They are still always going to be about probability. It is the future after all. We deal with this uncertainty all the time in our daily lives and in most cases do not think twice about it - we trust the probabilities involved. We trust them because we are familiar with them and have first hand experience of them and take calculated risks and gather more information when needed.
For climate models, for some people, maybe the trust is not there because of a lack of familiarity - all the way to the fear or suspicion that "unscrupulous or inept scientists" could be feeding the wrong data into the models. Or that the models themselves are too far out of line with the reality they are trying to simulate. Or that it's all just too complex (from the layman's point of view of course). I usually don't hear these concerns from the people who are actually in the best position to know or evaluate them though. Besides climate models, there is also a large body of physical/empirical evidence and measurements from the past century that show multiple lines of evidence for AGW as well. All in all though, I'm well aware of the limitations (and usefulness to a degree) of models and what can happen in predicting the future. As we can see more and more - it's a complex, chaotic system - but none of this puts the fact that we are fueling the changes in any doubt - just the precise degree of severity in the decades ahead.
Actually, I found this quote from the Mr. Essex of your video and agree with it:
"So empirical models are the only possibility for anyone, no matter how clever. This does not mean that climate models have no value. It does not mean that they cannot provide useful insights into the science of climate. It does not mean that climate models are not the best we have or the state-of-the-art—they are the state-of-the-art! But the state-of-the-art canʼt tell us what the future is going to be. I note here that there are many people who have made full careers making specific predictions about climate, ostensibly backed up by what climate models actually cannot do."
You wouldn't convince anyone here with such an experiment.
That's a lab experiment and the result needs modeling to estimate the effect on the global temperature. People here don't trust models.
Try to convince them first that models are reliable.
They'll just say that they're not, because they cannot predict the exact temperature on a cloudy afternoon 100 years from now ^^
Yup that is the idiocy we are facing here. Which shows they they totally do not understand how it works. Getting them to understand that everything human build and discover is first tested in model or models are created to try and recreate phenomena that is observed.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
JoeUser Forums
WinCustomize Forums
Elemental Forums