snowflux Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I should add, a friend of mine who I never really discuss much apart from football with, quite out of the blue asked me in the car the other day if I thought global warming was real. I gave a fairly non-commital answer at first to see where he was going with it, and he said he thought it was odd that this whole "it's all going into the sea" meme seemed to have sprung up in a lot of places since it became apparent that warming hadn't really materialised. I replied that I hadn't noticed, which is true. And now here it is, on this thread. Score one to my football mate. In what way has warming "not really materialised"? The Earth has been warming since the 50's, albeit with slowdowns every now and again caused by other effects superimposed on the underlying warming trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 In what way has warming "not really materialised"? You'd have to ask him. I was probably paraphrasing there, but he'd probably seen the same telly news report on the fifteen year warming hiatus that got discussed here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I should add, a friend of mine who I never really discuss much apart from football with, quite out of the blue asked me in the car the other day if I thought global warming was real. I gave a fairly non-commital answer at first to see where he was going with it, and he said he thought it was odd that this whole "it's all going into the sea" meme seemed to have sprung up in a lot of places since it became apparent that warming hadn't really materialised. I replied that I hadn't noticed, which is true. And now here it is, on this thread. Score one to my football mate. As I understand it there are two "it's all going into the sea" narratives... - The first is the reduced alkalinity, aka 'acidification', of the oceans. There have been extended periods in the past when the seas were much less alkaline (basic) than today and heaps of shelly organisms thrived. So, the issue seems to be how quickly existing organisms can adapt to any perturbations in ph rather than the absolute level of ph. - The second is that some of the 'missing' heat from the last 15 years may be lurking in the sea. Presuably, if you accept the MMGW narrative, it has to be on the planet somewhere. I'll refer back to Bjorn Lomborg's post mentioned earlier which suggests that there is a rise in global temperature but a failure to understand ocean cycles may have caused people to overestimate its rate in the immediate past and underestimate it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I did hear the BBC weatherman last night say that the current temperatures were x degrees above "where they are supposed to be at this time of year." Very strange choice of words indeed, IMO. To be fair that is a pretty normal thing for a weatherman to say. Either above or below 'normal' for the time of year. I wouldn't align it to any sort of agenda - and i am pretty cynical about all this stuff. It has been pretty warm recently. I did a triathlon in a jock loch on Sunday - and the water was actually pretty pleasant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 shelly organisms I think I had her behind the cricket hut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 To be fair that is a pretty normal thing for a weatherman to say. Either above or below 'normal' for the time of year. I wouldn't align it to any sort of agenda - and i am pretty cynical about all this stuff. It has been pretty warm recently. I did a triathlon in a jock loch on Sunday - and the water was actually pretty pleasant. It was the use of the words "supposed to be" that stood out. I can live with above/below average. But who is the arbiter of what the weather is "supposed" to be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I think its just a poor choice of words to use. They do it all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 i still think my analogy is better since again there is very little downside to packing a brolly whereas the solutions provided for AGW would necessitate a new global economic order, at minimum. In what way does the policy 'Replace Coal fired plants with Nuclear' 'necessitate a new global economic order? Hmmm: Current Wold Economic Order: The West buys lots of oil, resulting in a transfer of cash to the middle east. A fair chunk of this cash ends up with people who hate us and want us all dead, the rest is used to prop up primitive autocratic regimes and keep BAE systems in business. In other news, China undercuts us in part by burning a shedload of coal without bothering too much about the local pollution, never mind AGW. In yet more news, the UK bases it's energy security on (straight faces please) LNG from the Gulf and pipelined gas from Russia. Oh, and apart from the expense of this, we are warming the climate and hoping in a fingers-crossed-and-eyes-closed way that nothing really drastic will happen as a result, in defiance of the geological evidence.. Or to take it a step further, do you think that extracting carbon based fuels (of which the amount is finite) from the ground and burning them is the best way to run our economy, now and forever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I haven't been convinced by any of Snowflux's charts, or that long, rambling email Fluffy sent me, imploring me to change my stance on global warming as I was making him look like off topic's resident fool, or Kurt Barlow just unconditionally agreeing with both of them. But Bob Geldof, you say? That's it, I'm convinced. I EMBRACE CLIMATE CHANGE!!! What email? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 What email? Maybe it was somebody else. I get so confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 What email? I can see I've touched a nerve here. Jesus man, get over it! I wouldn't take anything I say seriously. If I'm being totally honest, Fluffy didn't send me that email either (or did he? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I've been staring at his chart of modeled global temperature projections vs actual instrument readings... The cr@pness of the existing models at anticipating the hiatus in warming aside, I keep asking myself shouldn't there be just a teensy wee bit more curiosity about this 'natural variation' which has stopped the warming allegedly due to two centuries of carbon emissions in its tracks, effectively overnight? What critiques could you make of that graph? EDIT - my take: - First up, the red bar with '71%' next to it is less than half the height from the axis to the top. That is, therefore, not 71%. I suspect he is trying to say 'The red line goes up 171% of the green', but that's a guess. - Second, they say '11 year running mean' - but from inspection the red line finishes up above all the data points. Which is dubious, to say the least, because you can't have an average that's higher than all the data points.. - Third, we have the satellite records. They don't even measure the same thing as the model. Why include them? - Fourth, we know that the HADCRU4 data set does not have 100% global coverage (we don't take a lot of measurements at the poles), and for this reason is a likely underestimate, due to the observed polar amplification. And that's without delving into the references. The cynic in me sees a lot of small adjustments designed to give the biggest impression of difference, without real justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eight Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 What critiques could you make of that graph? You don't like the colours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 What critiques could you make of that graph? is it, the projected temp is twice the actual result, with the projected running away and the actual falling?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuggets Mahoney Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 What critiques could you make of that graph? Different colours, fuzzier lines are available... What that chart suggests to me is that the models are incomplete and do not include 'natural variation'. One critique could be that comparing the projections of those models with real world measurements, which incorporate natural variation, is like comparing apples with pears. A critique of the critique would be that this has been highlighted as an issue only recently, as plots have started to diverge. When 'natural variation' fell in line with the modeled projections, to many promoters of MMGW, that was just peachy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 As I understand it there are two "it's all going into the sea" narratives... - The first is the reduced alkalinity, aka 'acidification', of the oceans. There have been extended periods in the past when the seas were much less alkaline (basic) than today and heaps of shelly organisms thrived. So, the issue seems to be how quickly existing organisms can adapt to any perturbations in ph rather than the absolute level of ph. - The second is that some of the 'missing' heat from the last 15 years may be lurking in the sea. Presuably, if you accept the MMGW narrative, it has to be on the planet somewhere. I'll refer back to Bjorn Lomborg's post mentioned earlier which suggests that there is a rise in global temperature but a failure to understand ocean cycles may have caused people to overestimate its rate in the immediate past and underestimate it now. Yes, the fact that increasing CO2 levels will lead to an imbalance between heat in and heat out is fairly basic physics. This means that the slowdowns that we see in the rate of warming at the surface of the earth must be due to other factors. Possible candidates include: 1) Greater than expected takeup of heat by the oceans; this is difficult to model and prone to error. The rapid melting of ice at the poles over the last decade or so would presumably support this hypothesis. 2) An increased cooling effect by atmospheric aerosols arising from dirty industry and forest clearance. It's thought that this has been a cause of warming slowdowns in the past, and some suggest that the recent rapid and dirty industrialisation of the Far East could be responsible. Thus far, though, governments have refused to fund satellite experiments to measure this effect. 3) Variations in solar output. Not that likely, since the variations measured don't seem to correlate very well to changes in surface temperature. I suppose we'll find out over the next few years. If the surface temperature continues to increase at its current slower rate, than (1) is likely; if it takes off again as China and other countries clean up their acts, (2) is more likely the predominant factor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash4781 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Read the independent article. I don't see many facts quoted in his speech which i think is actually quoted through the Telegraph. More a rant, and a depressing one at that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 What that chart suggests to me is that the models are incomplete and do not include 'natural variation'. All models are incomplete. That's why test pilots have parachutes! Also, while natural variation may be hard to model, unnatural variation (i.e. changes in human activity) is even harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Different colours, fuzzier lines are available... What that chart suggests to me is that the models are incomplete and do not include 'natural variation'. One critique could be that comparing the projections of those models with real world measurements, which incorporate natural variation, is like comparing apples with pears. A critique of the critique would be that this has been highlighted as an issue only recently, as plots have started to diverge. When 'natural variation' fell in line with the modeled projections, to many promoters of MMGW, that was just peachy. Well, that chart in particular is in the 'just plain wrong' category - it picks a freakishly-hot (as in 'above trend' year) to line all the lines up. That's just wrong, as in mathematically wrong. You need to be a bit more robust in finding fault with things you agree with. Anyone can find fault with things they disagree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 All models are incomplete. That's why test pilots have parachutes! Also, while natural variation may be hard to model, unnatural variation (i.e. changes in human activity) is even harder. human activity is entirely natural. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 human activity is entirely natural. Well the words 'unnatural' or 'artificial' (by artifice) essentially mean human activity, or the product of it. If human activity was natural, what in the universe wouldn't be natural? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloo Loo Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 Well the words 'unnatural' or 'artificial' (by artifice) essentially mean human activity, or the product of it. If human activity was natural, what in the universe wouldn't be natural? I have an idea the only unnatural thing we do is make lasers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowflux Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 I have an idea the only unnatural thing we do is make lasers. Natural laser discovered in space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/10353206/Were-facing-a-mass-extinction-event-claims-Bob-Geldof.html Why is this man permitted to preach on a World stage and to impressionable minds? To be hyper critical, he didn't say that exactly (from the article). Technically, we are already in the middle of a mass extinction event (for other species). And if we get to 2030 on current emissions growth we are pretty much certain to go past the 2 degrees of warming that has been (politically) decided as a realistic limit. Mind you, 2 degrees means goodbye to a fair amount of the GIS and WAIS.. Humans probably won't go extinct, worst case is war, famine, mass die-back and the breakdown of civilization, I don't think he's correct with extinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted October 8, 2013 Share Posted October 8, 2013 In what way does the policy 'Replace Coal fired plants with Nuclear' 'necessitate a new global economic order? Hmmm: Current Wold Economic Order: The West buys lots of oil, resulting in a transfer of cash to the middle east. A fair chunk of this cash ends up with people who hate us and want us all dead, the rest is used to prop up primitive autocratic regimes and keep BAE systems in business. In other news, China undercuts us in part by burning a shedload of coal without bothering too much about the local pollution, never mind AGW. In yet more news, the UK bases it's energy security on (straight faces please) LNG from the Gulf and pipelined gas from Russia. Oh, and apart from the expense of this, we are warming the climate and hoping in a fingers-crossed-and-eyes-closed way that nothing really drastic will happen as a result, in defiance of the geological evidence.. Or to take it a step further, do you think that extracting carbon based fuels (of which the amount is finite) from the ground and burning them is the best way to run our economy, now and forever? Fuel for nuclear sectors is not finite ? Unless i have missed something - both carbon and nuclear based fuels are both finite - in terms of planet earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.