Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
durbster said:
Your graph shows there is less ice now than there was in the 1980s, and the three lowest averages were since 2007. I'm not sure what else there is to say. 
You said "Have you noticed the record low level of Arctic ice just lately"Just lately I took as today. Today the ice extent is sitting above 2007, 2012, 2013, 2011 and above the minima for all averages.
plunker said:
But it isn't that simple is it. Over short periods natural variation from the likes of ENSO produce peaks and troughs and your chosen start period for trend analysis has got whopping great El Nino in it and ends in a period dominated by negative-neutral ENSO. Your favourite period (18 years) is a cherry-pick and only exists in one particular satellite dataset that has drift issues. You neglect ocean heat content data. I could go on...
Okay, let us try that again, did Phil Jones agree that there has been no statistically significant global temperature increase in the last 18 years ? The answer is yes. Simple. Not difficult or complicated. It is in your interest to make it complicated. plunker said:
Not true - lack of statistically significant warming over short periods is not proof there has been no warming (see Phil Jones interview). Uncertainty runs both ways - not just in the direction you like.
But I thought the science was settled, that there was consensus? Global warming and the predicted global temperature increase of between 2 to 5 degrees over 100 years were as certain as the sunrise tomorrow. A one way street of warming. Now you are taking about uncertainty, is this a tipping point?Jinx said:
You said "Have you noticed the record low level of Arctic ice just lately"
Just lately I took as today. Today the ice extent is sitting above 2007, 2012, 2013, 2011 and above the minima for all averages.
Hm. You honestly thought I meant "today" only when referring to Arctic ice levels. Come off it.Just lately I took as today. Today the ice extent is sitting above 2007, 2012, 2013, 2011 and above the minima for all averages.
The phrasing was taken from the post I was replying to, in order to counter the inferrence that high Antarctic levels proved there was no warming.
Anyway, supposed misunderstandings aside, thanks for validating my point with your handy graph.
durbster said:
Hm. You honestly thought I meant "today" only when referring to Arctic ice levels. Come off it.
The phrasing was taken from the post I was replying to, in order to counter the inferrence that high Antarctic levels proved there was no warming.
Anyway, supposed misunderstandings aside, thanks for validating my point with your handy graph.
Warm does not equal warming. Warming requires an increase in temperature (of which there hasn't been one for almost 18 years). So yes there is global warm at the moment but no global warming. Given the Arctic ice extents are grouped at a similar level in recent years this does contradict the "warming" but not the "warm".The phrasing was taken from the post I was replying to, in order to counter the inferrence that high Antarctic levels proved there was no warming.
Anyway, supposed misunderstandings aside, thanks for validating my point with your handy graph.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
plunker said:
But it isn't that simple is it. Over short periods natural variation from the likes of ENSO produce peaks and troughs and your chosen start period for trend analysis has got whopping great El Nino in it and ends in a period dominated by negative-neutral ENSO. Your favourite period (18 years) is a cherry-pick and only exists in one particular satellite dataset that has drift issues. You neglect ocean heat content data. I could go on...
Okay, let us try that again, did Phil Jones agree that there has been no statistically significant global temperature increase in the last 18 years ? The answer is yes. Simple. Not difficult or complicated. It is in your interest to make it complicated.QuantumTokoloshi said:
plunker said:
Not true - lack of statistically significant warming over short periods is not proof there has been no warming (see Phil Jones interview). Uncertainty runs both ways - not just in the direction you like.
But I thought the science was settled, that there was consensus? Global warming and the predicted global temperature increase of between 2 to 5 degrees over 100 years were as certain as the sunrise tomorrow. A one way street of warming. Now you are taking about uncertainty, is this a tipping point?plunker said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
plunker said:
But it isn't that simple is it. Over short periods natural variation from the likes of ENSO produce peaks and troughs and your chosen start period for trend analysis has got whopping great El Nino in it and ends in a period dominated by negative-neutral ENSO. Your favourite period (18 years) is a cherry-pick and only exists in one particular satellite dataset that has drift issues. You neglect ocean heat content data. I could go on...
Okay, let us try that again, did Phil Jones agree that there has been no statistically significant global temperature increase in the last 18 years ? The answer is yes. Simple. Not difficult or complicated. It is in your interest to make it complicated.QuantumTokoloshi said:
plunker said:
Not true - lack of statistically significant warming over short periods is not proof there has been no warming (see Phil Jones interview). Uncertainty runs both ways - not just in the direction you like.
But I thought the science was settled, that there was consensus? Global warming and the predicted global temperature increase of between 2 to 5 degrees over 100 years were as certain as the sunrise tomorrow. A one way street of warming. Now you are taking about uncertainty, is this a tipping point?plunker said:
No, climate simply is complicated.
Climate certainly is. It does not change that there is no scientifically global temperature increase in the last 18 years, however you spin it.
plunker said:
You've crumbled into rhetoric already??
Nope, I thought the science around global warming was settled, now it seems it is not. Who knew !
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Tuesday 15th July 16:32
Jinx said:
Oh KP Ocean heat content? How expansive and reliable is that? And hasn't it also flat-lined in recent years?
Please explain how much energy it would take to raise 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of H2O by 1K and how much additional energy is supposedly being back radiated onto the earth (and this is even before we talk about quantisation and therefore the impossibility of back radiation increasing the temperature of the source) .
OHC appears to be on the up - http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/Please explain how much energy it would take to raise 1.3 billion cubic kilometers of H2O by 1K and how much additional energy is supposedly being back radiated onto the earth (and this is even before we talk about quantisation and therefore the impossibility of back radiation increasing the temperature of the source) .
At the least, there's no support for a cessation of warming in the earth's largest by far heat resevoir which is why I mentioned it.
I don't know the answer to your other questions.
My understanding is that 'back radiation' works on the ocean pretty much as it does on land - by impeding it's ability to cool.
plunker said:
It certainly seems to be settled in your mind.
Me - I'm a sceptic
Me to, especially when I am told the science is settled and there is a global consensus on global warming, it clearly not settled and a consensus is the domain of politicians not scientists, so perhaps there is something more to it than we are indoctrinated to believe.Me - I'm a sceptic
plunker said:
OHC appears to be on the up - http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
At the least, there's no support for a cessation of warming in the earth's largest by far heat resevoir which is why I mentioned it.
I don't know the answer to your other questions.
My understanding is that 'back radiation' works on the ocean pretty much as it does on land - by impeding it's ability to cool.
If the "heat" is going into the oceans than that is the global warming problem solved. There is no physical way for this "heat" to return to the atmosphere. CAGW averted can I have my money back please.At the least, there's no support for a cessation of warming in the earth's largest by far heat resevoir which is why I mentioned it.
I don't know the answer to your other questions.
My understanding is that 'back radiation' works on the ocean pretty much as it does on land - by impeding it's ability to cool.
QuantumTokoloshi said:
plunker said:
It certainly seems to be settled in your mind.
Me - I'm a sceptic
Me to, especially when I am told the science is settled and there is a global consensus on global warming, it clearly not settled and a consensus is the domain of politicians not scientists, so perhaps there is something more to it than we are indoctrinated to believe.Me - I'm a sceptic
That's opposed to the kind of so-called scepticism that's very target-fixated and political of course and isn't worthy of the name.
Edited by plunker on Tuesday 15th July 16:55
plunker said:
Jinx said:
If the "heat" is going into the oceans than that is the global warming problem solved. There is no physical way for this "heat" to return to the atmosphere. CAGW averted can I have my money back please.
Maybe! Do you feel lucky? 
dickymint said:
plunker said:
Jinx said:
If the "heat" is going into the oceans than that is the global warming problem solved. There is no physical way for this "heat" to return to the atmosphere. CAGW averted can I have my money back please.
Maybe! Do you feel lucky? If you post up your letter and any reply we can all see how you deal with that response and formulate our opinions accordingly. At least we'll hopefully have somebody answering who can give your marvellous show-stopper of a question a decent stab. Sound like a plan?
I'd be honestly interested to get an answer to this and all we're waiting on is the question being asked. Perhaps they too have no answer?
durbster said:
Art0ir said:
I think he's in the same position as me; neither the time or inclination to familarise myself with the nuances of climate science, certainly not to the extent that I can draw any hard conclusions from the data available.
Add me to that too. There's very little point getting into heated arguments about the science with people who know as little as I do about the subject. 
I prefer to hope the scientific institutes will guide us laypeople on the matters, as they do with every single other branch of science.
t levels of accuracy? Btw do you know anyone that can predict the future as you and others seem to be taking these predictions as gospel ...TX.
KareemK said:
dickymint said:
plunker said:
Jinx said:
If the "heat" is going into the oceans than that is the global warming problem solved. There is no physical way for this "heat" to return to the atmosphere. CAGW averted can I have my money back please.
Maybe! Do you feel lucky? 
I've never been afraid to admit when I'm wrong and I've been doing a little research this evening. So I've got to say, I'm now convinced. AGW is real and it's far worse than we thought.
My epiphany came as I was watching a "docudrama" on Pick in which freak weather was clearly and explicitly linked to global warming. It's the first time I've seen anyone actually link the two with more than "maybes" and "probably's" so it was a bit of an eye opener.
The rest of you who're still sceptical should try to catch it if they re-run it. It's called "Sharknado" and it's certainly not the future I want for my kids!
My epiphany came as I was watching a "docudrama" on Pick in which freak weather was clearly and explicitly linked to global warming. It's the first time I've seen anyone actually link the two with more than "maybes" and "probably's" so it was a bit of an eye opener.
The rest of you who're still sceptical should try to catch it if they re-run it. It's called "Sharknado" and it's certainly not the future I want for my kids!
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff