Re: Climategate: it's all unravelling now Shockingly, some of them are in support of GHG reduction policy, including McCain and Graham. And Sen. Warner before them.
Re: Climategate: it's all unravelling now ?? Crippling restrictions like those imposed by our friends at OPEC? Anyways, Bill McKibben says it best in this link on HuffPost...the enemy is physics and physics don't make compromises.
Re: Global Warming Raw Data Lost? Destroyed? Do as I say, not as I do: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/co...mos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html
Re: Global Warming Raw Data Lost? Destroyed? Typical. Maybe those caviar wedges are supposed to be edible versions of Socolow's Wedges? Maybe???
Re: Climategate: it's all unravelling now This is pretty interesting. Could it possibly be El nino's after affects causing the jump in temp?--> Could it be the Earth didnt have enough time to cool it self off before the tempertures started to rise again thus causing a steady rise in temps? Or could it be the Earth does it own thing as seen in the 07-08 temp drop outta the blue? Man made climate change? I find that very hard to except.
Re: Climategate: it's all unravelling now Year to year data points are dangerous to draw conclusions from. So how about 2,000 years of data points? Below is a summary graph of all the proxy studies of tree rings, ice core isotopes, etc. One of them is from CRU so I suppose we could toss one line... So what exactly makes it hard to accept? Hundreds of thousands of papers aren't enough? What do you need? A million papers? Or is it the fact that you and I might be doing something "bad" to the planet with our lifestyle?
Re: Climategate: it's all unravelling now CO2 gases released from 1979-1991 and 1994-1997 caused no alarming temp rises.
Re: Climategate: it's all unravelling now There is a long lag time between GHG levels and temperatures: up to 100 years. Basically, we're living in a climate that was dictated by emissions during our grandparents' time..basically from the 40's and 50's. That's why the IPCC and Stern Report and others are focusing on impacts in 2100 created by our actions today.
Re: Climategate: it's all unravelling now For the record: I do accept the concept of man made global warming, simply because it's the most reasonable approach to believe the experts if you're not an expert yourself. However, climategate has shown that at least part of the publications is driven by an agenda. I definitely don't accept any CRU data. The emails clearly show that historic records have been tampered with. The graph you show is based upon CRU data, compiled by Micheal "Hockey Stick" Mann et al. The UK Met Office (which is behind most of these historical temperature curves) has already announced to start from scratch after this scandal and they calculate with at least three years until that's done. Hopefully this will be an open and reproducible process. In any case, I will not accept any historic temperature curve until then as long as it has the slightest affiliation with the CRU.
Re: Climategate: it's all unravelling now No. And they should, but there's no reason to believe the conclusions will be any different. Absolutely none. The only thing that "climategate" has unveiled is that (a) scientists are humans too, and (b) CRU made a bad decision and deleted some "unmassaged" data.
Re: Climategate: it's all unravelling now Oh the planet is still warming at an alarming rate, it's just that people are looking in the wrong spot. We should see a proportion of this heat released into the atmosphere during this years El Nino event Figure 3: Total Earth Heat Content from 1950 (Murphy 2009).
Re: Climategate: it's all unravelling now On this note, I'm going to repeat something that was never addressed by the "Science is completely objective! This proves everything was cooked from the beginning!" people...
Re: Global Warming Raw Data Lost? Destroyed? EPA: Greenhouse Gases Threaten Public Health and the Environment / Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under the Clean Air Act About. Freaking. Time!
Re: Global Warming Raw Data Lost? Destroyed? Did you know that climate scientists manipulated raw data? I mean - they took historical raw data #'s, subtracted 32, and multiplied by 5/9ths before putting it into their model. If you manipulate old data that way, of course you will see lower temperatures. And then to make some models work, they even took modern temperature data and added 273 to each data point. After they did it - of course the global warming models fit! Fact - they manipulated data. End of story. Don't give me no scientific justification BS. Scientists are evil.
Re: Global Warming Raw Data Lost? Destroyed? Dammit - they subtracted 32 and multiplied by 5/9ths!!!! Don't you get it????!!!!! I can't explain further. The global warming mafia has probably traced my IP address and is sending hippy hit squads as we speak. I'll probably be clubbed to death by a baby seal by sunrise.
Re: Global Warming Raw Data Lost? Destroyed? I can't tell if this is genius sarcasm or weapons grade stupid. Edit: Nevermind.
Re: Climategate: it's all unravelling now Ehhhh, maybe. Satellite data show no warming of the sea surface since '98. As for subsurface temperatures, there's been no measured warming since 2003. (Decent NPR writeup, no Creationists they). Regardless of whether "warming has stopped" or not, the sea level rise over the last century is at a fairly steady 1.8 milimeters per year despite rapidly growing CO2 levels. It would take over a thousand years at this rate for the seas to even rise 2 meters. The truth will have to get a lot more inconvenient to justify the multi-billion dollar industry AGW has become.
Re: Climategate: it's all unravelling now Here's a much better write up http://www.skepticalscience.com/cooling-oceans.htm Nonsense, we are tracking in the upper limits of the IPCC projections, sea levels are expected to rise to > 90 cms by 2100, more so if the latest research suggesting East Antarctica is now losing mass proves to be correct.
Re: Climategate: it's all unravelling now I'd believe that chart, even if it's hard to grok. It takes a ton of energy to move ocean temperatures. After all, the sheer volume of the ocean is massive. Just to kind of help conceptualize this, think about how long it takes surface water temperatures to catch up to seasonal atmospheric temperatures. (For example, if you live by a Great Lake, think about how long it takes to freeze - and then how long it takes to thaw again.) And that's just at the surface; go down a certain distance, and the water temperature hardly changes at all seasonally, and once you go a certain distance further it doesn't change at all. Sea temperature change will lag atmospheric change. And while sea temperature changes will impact sea level (thermal expansion), the melting of ice masses on land will probably have a bigger effect. Of course, the ecological impact of even a 2 degree C shift in ocean temperatures is almost unimaginable. Coral reefs would be decimated (and that's a huge percentage of the planet's biological diversity - not to mention the negative impacts to human settlements via a loss of the sheltering effects of reefs, and the economic impact). Ironically, an increase in CO2 levels hits reefs twice - the first in rising temperatures, and the second in the reduction of available carbonate for corals to lay down new skeleton.
Re: Climategate: it's all unravelling now Interestingly though, using all of the climate models I have seen, the largest rises in temperature should be occurring in the troposphere. But real life data does not show significant temperature changes in either direction in the troposphere. The fact that the ocean is warming but the surface temperatures are not (at least not much), and the troposphere is not warming at all...shouldn't that be a clue that our warming is not coming from CO2? It is a serious problem that the ocean is warming, but like you said, it takes a massive change in surface temperature for even surface water to alter its temperature. But we haven't seen massive changes in surface temperature. And since we have an observed increase in the greenhouse effect (the ability of a gas to absorb energy), that would mean that solar radiation to water bodies is actually decreasing (unless solar radiation is increasing faster than our atmosphere's ability to absorb it, which is a possibility). So in other words, we don't have our air heating the water, and we don't have direct solar radiation heating our water. What is heating it?
Re: Climategate: it's all unravelling now So, I'm not an expert on this issue, and tropospheric effects are something I really don't understand well, but my understanding is that we are seeing tropospheric heating of up to about .25 deg C per decade right now. The models track very well in the short term (ie, weather), but less well in the long term (climate). No model - ever - is 100% accurate, even for things we have an exceptionally good handle on. I believe the current concensus re: tropospheric modeling is that the models are more accurate than the measurements we are making (which may seem weird, but it's possible). Actually, the takeaway is that the ocean has massive thermal inertia. It takes a long time to get it moving, and a long time to get it stopped again. The ocean can sink a large amount of energy before we see a measurable change in temperature.