Climate scientists link global warming to extreme weather There has been a healthy debate in the scientific community about the linkage, if any, between the recent spate of extreme weather events and the ongoing increase in global temperatures. Now a group of researchers reports they've uncovered an atmospheric mechanism that lends credence to the argument that, yes, global warming is …
There's a very strong link between Mozilla Crash Reporter and Mozilla software crashing. As such I've decided I need to uninstall the Crash Reporter to see if it makes Mozilla software more stable :P
Oh I'm sorry was I confusing correlation and causation?
The sad thing is that this is common sense. A change in the world's climate will cause a shift in the weather patterns. (No duh!) Sorry you don't need an army of butterflies to get a change in the weather pattern.
All scientists have to do is to pull enough core and tree ring samples to see the temperature change also impacted the amount of rainfall and or lack of it in the area.
The key thing is that many involved in the climate gate fiasco is blaming this on man kind. It isn't.
Having said that, if all nations followed the Kyoto Treaty, having cleaner air wouldn't be a bad thing. Unfortunately that won't happen any time soon.
Along with the lack of clean power from nuclear energy and research in to fusion reactors.... we're doomed to keep polluting our planet.
It seems that you are not aware of how these silly "97%" came to see the light of climatology-publicity-world. Nevertheless, I'm nearly dying to get to know who qualifies as a "Top Climate Scientist", and why, and who does the qualifiying, and when the world will end.
"In addition, global land mass is concentrated in that hemisphere, and land masses warm and cool more quickly than do oceans. "These two factors are crucial for the mechanism we detected,"..."
That's a good explanation for this effect. What's interesting is that if these two factors are the main drivers of this mechanism, then it cannot be anthropogenic, since you can hardly blame humans for the fact of landmasses being concentrated in the northern hemisphere, nor the fact that land gains and loses heat more quickly than ocean.
No, the original poster is right. The article talks about the 'land mass' heating and cooling more rapidly than the ocean. Not that people living on that land mass may cause it to heat up. So, the poster is correct in his comment on what the article says. However, I do agree that those people living on the land masses could be emitting pollution etc. that might affect the speed and amount of the heating and cooling of that land mass, but that's not what the article says.
The article is saying when the world warms due to some cause X, the land warms faster than the ocean. The X can be man.
Don't be a bell-end. The land warms faster - and retains heat longer - than the ocean because it is land and not water.
This is the basis of onshore breezes in the afternoon of hot days. The sea has cooled slightly, whilst the land is still warm. The warmth of the land causes air to rise, reducing air pressure, which induces a cooling onshore breeze.
" The land warms faster - and retains heat longer - than the ocean "
Land warms faster, it also cools faster. It's the ocean that retains heat for longer. Onshore breezes during the afternoon aren't because "The sea has cooled slightly", they're because the land has heated up quicker then the sea. During the evening the land cools quicker and the sea retains heat longer so at night the breeze switches to offshore
Blargh, so I get the mechanism wrong. It's irrelevant to the point at hand.
One of the two entities in question warms and cools at a different rate to the other. This is because of it's physical properties. It is not because one is inhabited by Man, and the other is not - you get an onshore breeze, even if there is no-one on shore.
He's not a bell-end, he's got it absolutely spot on, try reading what he said again. If not I'll simplify and break the article down into short sentences.
The WORLD is getting warmer on average for reason "X"
The land gets warmer faster than the ocean due to basic physics
The land retains heat longer than the ocean due to basic physics
The distribution of land/ocean therefore concentrates the warming in certain areas
That uneven distribution of warming causes marked changes in climate
Your point of view may be that "X" is man or not man but saying "Well, bell-end, land staying warm has got nothing to do with man" shows you've missed the point by a country mile.
If you read that through again and still can't grasp the basic concept then stop calling people bell-ends.
The government can't change the weather, but it can help us prepare for bad weather when it comes. And that's the point. Climate change deniers would rather leave us at risk than lift a finger towards caution -- less it be deemed an admission that in fact a climate change is occurring.
We may never all agree on what causes climate change, but we should all agree that we need to prepare for it.
> Climate change deniers would rather leave us at risk than lift a finger towards caution -- less it be deemed an admission that in fact a climate change is occurring.
Unfortunately, all that the government are offering to mitigate the affects of global warming is the opportunity to pay more tax. It's hardly a solution to anything to be honest, except perhaps to offset their budget deficit.
That is what the global cooling>warming>climate change nonsense is all about. Control and taxes. What melted the previous ice age? There were hardly any humans and zero technology. But let's ignore that fact for a moment to ignore more facts about core samples that show that the earth has cooled and warmed many times over the past millions of years. Let's see how we can make Al Gore rich and famous. Let's see how we can tax people more. Let's ignore how the earth spins on its axis, orbits around the sun, which is millions of miles away and the thermostat wire from the sun to the earth doesn't really reach, that the solar system is orbiting and all these moving parts change the temp by one degree and we have to impose carbon tax. Something has to be so absurd to make it believable and hence the global cooling>warming>climate change nonsense.
"What melted the previous ice age?"
Changes in Earth's orbit altering the distribution of sunlight which triggered melting of ice sheets and emission of greenhouse gases which acted as a positive feedback on the warming.
...what you thought there was no answer to your question?
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
"Changes in Earth's orbit altering the distribution of sunlight which triggered melting of ice sheets and emission of greenhouse gases which acted as a positive feedback on the warming."
Now and then the planet wobbles a bit and it messes up what's on the surface.
It's not exactly a stable system as it is, a geological roller-coaster ride.
> What melted the previous ice age?
Please clarify which Ice Age you are talking about . We are currently in an interglacial period of the *current* ice age, i.e. an age during which part of the planet is covered in ice. When the planet emerges from it, there will be no permanent polar icecaps and sea levels will be many tens of metres higher than they are currently. Since we are adapted to the current climate and sea levels, in terms of agriculture and settlement patterns, this will mean considerable disruption for any Earth-based human civilizations which might have made it that far.
We are currently in an interglacial period of the *current* ice age, i.e. an age during which part of the planet is covered in ice. When the planet emerges from it, there will be no permanent polar icecaps and sea levels will be many tens of metres higher than they are currently. Since we are adapted to the current climate and sea levels, in terms of agriculture and settlement patterns, this will mean considerable disruption for any Earth-based human civilizations which might have made it that far.
Erm, interglacial means the period between two glacial events. When it is warmer. Inter meaning between, Glacial meaning ... cold. So when we emerge from the interglacial period, we will by definition be in a *glacial* period. Which is highly unlikely to involve higher sea levels and a lack of permanent ice caps.
You are dead right on the whole disruption to civilization though, as the equatorial regions will get hotter, the poles colder, and the temperate belts will narrow reducing the amount of prime arable land.
Umm, we are in an interglacial period. For a layman's definition, listen to the aforementioned In Our Time podcast. If there's ice at the poles, we are in an ice age. An Interglacial period is one where there is less ice (i.e. not covering all of northern Europe).
We may be heading out of our current ice age and industrial era CO2 generation may be assisting that, who knows. But we are still in one.
"... imate change deniers would rather leave us at risk than lift a finger towards caution"
That is completely wrong.
The great bulk of thought from the so called "deniers" is that it is unlikely that any realistic change in human CO2 emissions will have any effect on the climate, that the idea that "now" is a somehow optimum temperature in any way is logically broken, and that humans should understand that the climate changes and adapt their civilisations to live with it.
The precautionary principle is just another way of justifying taxation. Weasel words.
" the idea that "now" is a somehow optimum temperature in any way is logically broken"
This is true. There is no inherent problem with climate change happening the way it has always happened, over the course of millennia. The current climate change problem is that it is happening in centuries or decades rather than millennia, and therefore will incur huge costs both in terms of ecology (species not being able to adapt fast enough) and economy (agri-business not adapting fast enough to changing climate, food shortages, flooding of low-lying areas all combine to cause tens/hunderds of millions of starving refugees.)
Actually I'd say its quite the opposite. Given the certainty that the climate changes naturally, sometimes radically and rapidly, those of us who are unconvinced by the MMGW hypothesis think its pretty damn stupid to waste billions on measures that might or might not help if the MM hypothesis is correct, but are completely worthless in coping with climate change from any other cause.
Am I dreaming? Am I falling down, down, down somebody's rabbit hole. The author of almost every story I read about climate change -- and almost every reader who comments --- makes no mention of the confirmed fact that global warming stopped in 1997. Even IPCC Chairman Pachauri confirms it. Warming may start up again in 20 or 30 years, but for now it is clear that there has been no global warming for almost two decades. Meanwhile, man-made CO2 emissions have increased 8%, which pretty much trashes the whole CO2 driven AGW hypothesis.
So why do I keep seeing stories like this? Why are we pretending that we are still experiencing a relentless global warming? Mr. Myslewski, please help me understand what is going on here. Am I crazy? It's hard for me to believe that you are intentionally writing make-believe articles that delude your audience. What am I missing?
Most people aren't bright enough to question the official line. Most people are frightened intellectual dwarfs who would rather appear absurd and parrotlike than have to stand against a false but popular belief.
I note you've been down voted twice already - such is the ferocity of climate madness. Even on a site that tends towards techy stuff and science, still people are frightened little rabbits who cannot think outside of the box.
The climate is principally solar driven. To claim that the sun is not the main driver of earth's climate is an act of gross stupidity, but MMGW is grossly stupid and its adherents are likewise, grossly stupid.
So brainwashed are they, that even when the same scientists say "actually, we have got it wrong, there hasn't been any warming for 15 or so years", people cannot let go of their belief that we're cooking Mother Earth.
And yes, such is the level of madness that now pervades the media and it's so called "journalists" that they're starting to question whether or not extra-terrestrial events are CO2 driven.
So, what are you missing? Nothing. It's everyone else who is missing their brain.
It isnt the first time this has happened either. How many cults and religions have set an absolute date for something to happen? When it didnt happen the believers didnt just break up, they accepted the next prediction willingly.
How many end of the world predictions have we had? How many odd and interesting ways have we had for the end of the world? Each of them undetectable until it actually happens. Compare that to a rainy day or a sunny day being called proof of this doomsday climate change and we have just another cult with another prediction.
And when the deadline passes the leaders make a new prediction and the followers continue in their absolutely certain belief. How many people are absolutely certain there is a god? How many people are absolutely certain of the MMCC we all gonna die theory? And both use the natural world as proof to their theories while holding no real evidence.
Maybe some people need a god. Maybe belief is necessary for some people to function in this world. Maybe its too scary to look for truth.
goats in pajamas typed for posterity:
<snippage>
"So brainwashed are they, that even when the same scientists say "actually, we have got it wrong, there hasn't been any warming for 15 or so years", people cannot let go of their belief that we're cooking Mother Earth.
And yes, such is the level of madness that now pervades the media and it's so called "journalists" that they're starting to question whether or not extra-terrestrial events are CO2 driven."
This is what happens when Reason is abandoned for political expediency. People down voting a post that cites the IPCC's recent acknowledgement of the halt in the rise of global temperature demonstrate this "Reason Denial."
"People down voting a post that cites the IPCC's recent acknowledgement of the halt in the rise of global temperature demonstrate this "Reason Denial.""
The IPCC hasn't acknowledged any such thing. Maybe that's why you see the down votes.
"Haven't you heard? IPCC Chairman Pachauri confirms it: Global warming stopped in 1997!"
Not true. He never confirmed that (not least because it's wrong). The IPCC office says that his views have been misrepresented by a certain Australian newspaper where this "claim" comes from.
Not content with simply denying climate change climate skeptics have recently taken to falsely claiming others are denying it too. It's a sick little tactic.
"Not true. He never confirmed that... Not content with simply denying climate change climate skeptics have recently taken to falsely claiming others are denying it too. It's a sick little tactic."
Why should the world believe a pro-climate change 'railway engineer' over say a sceptical physicist?
The man is not a scientist - just a mouthpiece.
"Why should the world believe a pro-climate change 'railway engineer' over say a sceptical physicist?"
The previous head of the IPCC was a climate scientist, a british one in fact. Was kicked out under pressure from the Bush administration. They wanted a more business friendly chair of the IPCC (ie NOT a scientist). So you get a railway engineer. Although his degree in economics and business background probably was the real reason he was hired.
It's funny how skeptics don't like climate scientists but as soon as you put a business man in place instead they find start moaning how he isn't a scientist.
"The previous head of the IPCC was a climate scientist, a british one in fact. Was kicked out under pressure from the Bush administration... It's funny how skeptics don't like climate scientists but as soon as you put a business man in place instead they find start moaning how he isn't a scientist."
Thanks for that, but perhaps you could now address my original question. After which we can turn the the issue of 'expert (IPCC) reviewers'.
> So why do I keep seeing stories like this?
>
Maybe because you get your science from the Heartland Institute?
This is such a ancient denialist trope it's hardly worth the bother of looking up the URL, but here it is. Consider yourself bitchslapped, and next time at least TRY to check your talking point nonsense isn't specifically listed on one of the many sites listing rebuttals of common Daily Mail / saloon bar bore horseshit -- say, for instance: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php , or http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ << it's #9 on the first list.
Here's a more detailed, patient explanation of your fundamental misapprehension of the most basic of climatology 101:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/a-warming-pause/
But warming hasn't stopped at all. Based on this logic, manmade global warming has actually 'stopped' nine times since 1970, in 1972, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1995, 1996 and 1997.
Actually the facts are that the underlying anthropogenic warming trend is clear and unambiguous when temperature data for the past four decades are taken into account.
Using simple linear regression (ordinary least squares) we can detect and measure a clear trend over the 42-year period between 1970 and 2011, indicating an average temperature increase of 0.151°C per decade. This trend is statistically significant at the 95 per cent level, the standard test which means the probability that there is no warming trend at all in the data is less than 5 per cent.
When one uses flawed logic, inappropriate statistical methods and very small global temperature datasets, one is unable to detect underlying trends amid the noise. In essence, one cannot see the wood for the trees. To analyse the underlying trend in global temperatures, you need enough data to be able to detect and measure it. Otherwise you can mistakenly conclude that absence of evidence means evidence of absence. It is completely arbitrary to limit an analysis to just 10 or 15 data points. If, for-instance, one considers the last 18 years of data, and not just the last 15, one finds a statistically significant warming trend of 0.118°C per decade since 1994.
What,here? On El Reg? No chance, as can be seen from the comments above. I blame the editor for turning a technology site into an anti-science one.
Anti-science? The only thing anti-science is the absurd doomsday bridgade whiping up a storm about trace gases frazzling our atmosphere. Climate Change Science is the complete nadir of late 20th/ early 21st century naval-gazing ludicrous theorizing.
It seems any weather event adds more weight to the AGW theory, and yet no AGW theorist will tell us an event that would or even could falsify AGW. That's because it isn't falsifiable, it isn't even a science, it's just dogma.
Eponymous Howard, I think even you know how stupid your remark was.
People - climatologists, are doing that. And coming to the opposite conclusion to the AGW crowd. But of course, they're in the pocket of Big Oil. Why? Monbiot, Idiot in Clown in Chief at the Guardian, said so.
In fact, your remark completely missed the point I was making. Suppose I had the time, and the statistical analysis skills (I freely admit I have neither off hand) to go over all the "data". What data would you count as contradictory to the AGW theory? How about static temperatures for the last 15 years? Oh no right, that is totally expected and in line with the models. Of course it is.
You see, the point that you are missing is that no evidence will ever be able to contradict AGW theory. Because it is
(a) completely amorphous and protean.
(b) does not even allow the possibility of being falsified.
We could have constant temperatures for 25 years and the AGW theorists will still be howling at the moon, screaming the sky is falling. It used to be funny, then it was a little scary, right before the Copenhagen conference, when it became clear the whole AGW racket was a complete farce. But, the funding mill keeps grinding on, and institutes like the CRU etc still have to write about something, anything that sells a good scare story. Only these stories aren't scary anymore - if they ever were - they're just sad.
"and yet no AGW theorist will tell us an event that would or even could falsify AGW. That's because it isn't falsifiable, it isn't even a science, it's just dogma."
Kind of hard to take climate skeptics seriously when they are simultaneously arguing AGW has been falsified and can't be falsified. Scroll up for climate skeptics arguing AGW has been "trashed".
This is much like creationists who in their denial are torn between claiming evolution has been disproven and then arguing it can't be falsified.
"and yet no AGW theorist will tell us an event that would or even could falsify AGW. That's because it isn't falsifiable, it isn't even a science, it's just dogma."
Kind of hard to take climate skeptics seriously when they are simultaneously arguing AGW has been falsified and can't be falsified. Scroll up for climate skeptics arguing AGW has been "trashed".
This is much like creationists who in their denial are torn between claiming evolution has been disproven and then arguing it can't be falsified.
I'm pretty sure we had this discussion in another thread long ago.
I'm not going to speak for anyone else, and I know that there is just as much literature picking apart AGW theory as supporting it (of course paid for by Exxon).
Anyway, my point is that AGW has nothing to test. What can we test that could show the theory is wrong? Please tell me. I asked before in another thread and I'm pretty sure your reply was waffle waffle.
My point is not that somebody can look at AGW theory and pick it apart. Of course they can. They have and they do.
My point is that in it's own universe AGW theory is closed. Meaning, if you believe it, then there is no way you can not believe it, by any rational, scientific testing. What would it take you to disbelieve it? 25 year sof plateauing temps? 30? 15 Winters in a row with no record temps? What? Nothing, right. Because it can't be argued against.
This is much like early 20th century Marxism - contained in its own universe it was entirely consistent and logical, and its conclusions made sense . But it rested on a dogmatic faith that was empirically untrue ( The Labour theory of value), but as a part of Marxist dogma could not be argued against.
"Anyway, my point is that AGW has nothing to test. What can we test that could show the theory is wrong? Please tell me. I asked before in another thread and I'm pretty sure your reply was waffle waffle."
You falsify the IR absorption properties of CO2. Or you can falsify the CO2 rise in the atmosphere is caused by man. Or even falsify CO2 is rising. There are loads of ways you could falsify the theory. The problem though is that AGW is pretty much fact. Rising CO2 has a warming effect, there's too much science behind this. You are unlikely to falsity the IR absorption properties of CO2. It's been too thouroughly tested.
When creationists make the same claim that evolution cannot be falsified, I point out the old one that finding a rabbit in cambrian rock would falsify it. Or finding a transitional fossil between birds and mammals. Etc. But again I point out that the theory is pretty much fact, they are unlikely to find these things.
"What would it take you to disbelieve it? 25 year sof plateauing temps? 30? 15 Winters in a row with no record temps? What? Nothing, right. Because it can't be argued against."
Would 25 years of plateauing temps despite a cooling Sun prove that the Sun cannot cause cooling? Ask yourself how silly that conclusion would be.
You falsify the IR absorption properties of CO2. Or you can falsify the CO2 rise in the atmosphere is caused by man.
Absurd. AGW theory isn't about CO2 IR absorption properties, but the consequences of the properties. How about co2 change following temperature change. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/23/new-research-in-antarctica-shows-co2-follows-temperature-by-a-few-hundred-years-at-most/
The very idea that the dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans changes so readily after adding a few more ppm of co2 and methane is quite absurd. AGW is about the mechanism that makes this increase cause temperatures to increase. I want to know what weather or climate observations could we use to test this idea. None, is the answer you were looking for.
Or even falsify CO2 is rising.
Why. AGW theory is not a statement that co2 is rising, just about its consequences.
There are loads of ways you could falsify the theory.
Nope, you gave examples of things that could falsify other theories.
The problem though is that AGW is pretty much fact.
That statement there is the problem. You have buried you head in the sand and refuse to not only consider ways to falsify the theory, but even don't realize that it isn't even possible to. It is dogmatic belief. You would believe it even if we entered a new ice age tomorrow. (oh right that is predicted in the models too)
Rising CO2 has a warming effect, there's too much science behind this. You are unlikely to falsity the IR absorption properties of CO2. It's been too thoruroughly tested.
I don't want to disprove IR absorption properties of CO2. Your leap from this to trace amounts of CO2 act as a thermostat for the entire dynamic atmospheric and oceanic systems is absurd.
I notice how you are side stepping the issue (as I said waffle waffle). Moving the goal posts to a discussion of IR, when you know this is not what AGW is - it is a theory about the consequences of CO2 increase on the atmosphere.
When creationists make the same claim that evolution cannot be falsified, I point out the old one that finding a rabbit in cambrian rock would falsify it.
Oh great! Then you can provide me with an example that will falsify AGW. Evolution isn't a simple statement that genetic mutations occur, but about the consequences of those mutations on a population over time. Similarly, AGW isn't about IR and CO2, but about the consequences of them. So what is AGW's rabbit in the cambrian rock? *crickets chirping*
But again I point out that the theory is pretty much fact, they are unlikely to find these things.
So what "things" am I unlikely to find examples of that could falsify AGW? 15 years of constant temps?
Would 25 years of plateauing temps despite a cooling Sun prove that the Sun cannot cause cooling?
No and that's why I am also skeptical (though not as much as AGW) about the Sun's direct role in the Earth's climate changes.
"Absurd. AGW theory isn't about CO2 IR absorption properties"
Then you don't understand the theory. Simple as that.
"How about co2 change following temperature change"
That's like arguing the hypothesis that chickens come from eggs is falsified by the observation of eggs coming from chickens.
That's like arguing the hypothesis that chickens come from eggs is falsified by the observation of eggs coming from chickens.
No it isn't. I am pointing out that the very idea that increasing CO2 means increasing temps is historically not necessarily true. There is a fair bit of evidence it is the other way around.
I also noted how you completely side-stepped everything else. i.e. we seem to agree now that AGW is just pure dogma, masquerading as science. If no climate or weather observation can falsify the theory (for example a lull in powerful hurricanes, 15 years of stagnant temps etc), then it is pointless finding ANY evidence form climate to support AGW.
Think about it.
The whole point of collecting evidence (satellite temps, ground temps, ocean temps, data on hurricanes etc etc) is to see if it fits with the hypothesis. But since NONE of this vast amount of data can falsify the theory, as you seem to agree, there is little point collecting ANY of it. We already have the Truth, supposedly.
Usually in science you collect data that can either validate or falsify your theory. AGW is different, since no set of data could falsify it.
Your claim that I am to disprove IR absorption of properties CO2 doesn't hold much water. If that was the issue, climate scientists would be spending their time testing CO2 absorption in the lab. But they don't. They collect data on temps etc. Why is that? And what kind of data could we hope to collect that would show AGW to be, if not falsified, then at least put into question?
I know you have no answer. Because I just showed that you are believing in dogma, not science. Think about it for a bit.
Gonna give you a lesson in unprovable lies. Lets see how you do-
God is a very popular belief world wide. He obviously exists because we exist and believe in him. We even have many books and he sent his son to show us the way to the afterlife etc.
Disprove god.
(Note: I do not believe in any of the many deities claimed to be in existence)
I will be very impressed if you can disprove god because nobody has ever managed to do it. This is because it is verging on impossible to disprove a negative. It is particularly difficult when the goal posts keep moving which is the only way to continue a belief in god/MMCC co2 theory through current scientific knowledge.
"When creationists make the same claim that evolution cannot be falsified, I point out the old one that finding a rabbit in cambrian rock would falsify it. Or finding a transitional fossil between birds and mammals. Etc. But again I point out that the theory is pretty much fact, they are unlikely to find these things."
Much like Eadon has to mention Windows in a disparaging fashion at every turn, what is it with you and Creationists?
I'm genuinely interested as to why you seem to find their deluded ramblings so offensive that you mention them all the time.
***Eponymous Howard, I think even you know how stupid your remark was.
People - climatologists, are doing that. And coming to the opposite conclusion to the AGW crowd.****
Really? Then I am quite certain you can link to many pieces of research where the data is equally freely available, the method clearly stated (and freely available) and the result equally replicable. No? Didn't think so.
"I think even you know how stupid your remark was...."
"this recent study by the PIK researchers deserves – at minimum – dispassionate consideration"
But Rik ignores the hard evidence (not models) that extreme weather events have decreased. eg, hurricanes at a 40-year low. This is because evidence doesn't support his superstitions.
Perhaps Rik is capable of dispassionate consideration. But not, it seems, when the subject is climate.
"But Rik ignores the hard evidence (not models) that extreme weather events have decreased. eg, hurricanes at a 40-year low."
Citations please, as the only stats I have found so far indicate that that is not true for Atlantic or Pacific hurricanes (which are not all, but makes me wonder if where the discrepancy is going to be). I'll keep looking in the meantime.Thanks.
...As global temperatures have increased, the Arctic is warming to a greater extent than the rest of the northern hemisphere...
But...?? What about the theory?
I have been watching the Global Warming hypothesis since its earliest beginnings. In the heady days of 1998, when it was obvious that the temperature was going up, the AGW theory explanation was quite clear. The Sun's UV rays were absorbed by CO2 and re-radiated as IR. This was going to happen most where the rays were densest - over the TROPICS. The theory says that the tropics should warm faster and earlier than the poles. But that doesn't seem to be happening....
Which suggest to me that, whatever is warming the poles, it's not the originally proposed 'global warming' process....
This post has been deleted by its author
"Which the Met Office, Pachauri and numerous others have now admitted have now admitted have not increased for 16 years+"
False. False.
Neither the Met Office, nor Pachauri (and I also question what "numerous" others you are refering to) have "admitted" any such thing. What this is, is climate skeptic spreading false rumors, or propaganda. It's as cheap as old war propaganda. Claim the enemy has deserted and now supports us.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Pachauri was reported in The Australian" (and so far you haven't cited your source debunking this in the comment above) the Met Office were reported pretty much everywhere"
You mean the Met Office was reported in the Daily Mail, and then this was parroted elsewhere. To which the Met Office responded on their blog saying that they had been misrepresented. To claim the Met Office have admitted or acknowledged something requires the MET OFFICE to have done so. It doesn't mean the Daily Mail or Australian can print rubbish on other people's behalf and then you can go around the internet claiming Pachauri or the Met Office have admitted something they never did.
See skepticalscience.com there is an article there in which they obtained a response from the IPCC office which says the Australian misrepresented Pachauri's views.
This post has been deleted by its author
The bottom line is that we have been falsely led to believe Pachauri and the Met Office acknowledged or admitted something they didn't.
Perhaps it's worth exploring what it would be like if it was the other way round.
One day a climate skeptic posts some temperature station data on their blog. They regard it as run of the mill data, but I look at it and think it shows catastrophic global warming. Given it's their data I then go around claiming skeptics have acknowledged (or even admitted) catastrophic global warming. I might, as the Daily Mail did, even claim the skeptics had silently released a *report* admitting this, as if they were trying to hide it. When the reason it was "silent" is of course because the skeptics don't share my interpretation of their data at all and so saw no need to fanfare it.
And when the climate skeptics finally notice a bunch of people saying "Even the skeptics now admit catastrophic global warming!" they put out a statement denouncing my misrepresentation of them and stating they don't actually accept catastrophic global warming. But then I turn round and say "well they would say that wouldn't they!"
And no shit this is exactly how it happened the other way round.
This post has been deleted by its author
LOL all you want, Anonymous Coward (appropriate, that), here's what the Met Office actually said:
"The linear trend from August 1997 (in the middle of an exceptionally strong El Nino) to August 2012 (coming at the tail end of a double-dip La Nina) is about 0.03ｰC/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05ｰC over that period, but equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.
"As we stressed before, choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system. If you use a longer period from HadCRUT4 the trend looks very different. For example, 1979 to 2011 shows 0.16ｰC/decade (or 0.15ｰC/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16ｰC/decade in GISS). Looking at successive decades over this period, each decade was warmer than the previous ・so the 1990s were warmer than the 1980s, and the 2000s were warmer than both. Eight of the top ten warmest years have occurred in the last decade.
"Over the last 140 years global surface temperatures have risen by about 0.8C. However, within this record there have been several periods lasting a decade or more during which temperatures have risen very slowly or cooled. The current period of reduced warming is not unprecedented and 15 year long periods are not unusual."
http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/10/14/met-office-in-the-media-14-october-2012/
AFAIK, the more alarmist of the temperature increase predictions required various positive feedback mechanisms in the models to estimated on the high side. Obviously, positive feedback mechanisms are destabilising, and will predict increased severe weather events.
The ab initio ( as oposed to the IPCC's Detect and Atribute methodology ) basis for the parameter in these mechanisms will be less sound than the rest of the model. And the soundness of any quanitfied historical record of "extreme events" even less believable.
In addition, global land mass is concentrated in that hemisphere
Interesting aside, this reminds me of a conversation I had with a very early girlfriend. She once asked that "if all the land mass is on the top of the world, it will be unbalanced, so why doesn't it spin off it's axis and go all wobbly?".
It was like a thousand facepalms at once.
AFAIK, the more alarmist of the temperature increase predictions required various positive feedback mechanisms in the models to estimated on the high side. Obviously, positive feedback mechanisms are destabilising, and will predict increased severe weather events.
One positive feedback is the infamous melting Siberian permaforst. Gives me the shivers. In fact Al Gore is so worried about this that he is canceling all his air travel, downsizing his house to a tent and will live off the land, with the carbon foot print of a caveman. Oh wait no. That was the alternate reality where anybody believed this crap.
Why do we have to go back to square one every time this comes up? Why can't people make basic attempts to learn.
Weather = What's happening now
Climate = What you'd expect for the time of year
Global = Measured across the whole globe, not just in a localised area.
So, three or four bad winters in the UK don't mean it's getting colder in the same way that three or four scorching summers don't mean it's getting warmer. The local cold/warm can be offset by warm/cold somewhere else. It is after all called Global Warming.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Actually NOAA say 2012 was the warmest la nina year on record but that's nit picking. I understand that the STOC reports that NOAA produce as where these hottest year on record reports come from, however they announce the record breaking temerature to much trumpeting and later on adjuct the temperature for that year down "in light of all the data being processed". It's very easy to then have constant record breaking years if the previous records have been "adjusted" down.
Yes, I often stop reading something when it doesn't chime with my worldview. I find it helps me learn about things I don't know and form educated opinions, rather than just sticking to dogma that I read somewhere once and chimed with me.
Oh, hang on, the other one...
But now someone had gone out and found one.
Good work.
Yes the global weather system is damm complicated.
But as long as we don't throw up our hands and go "It's all in $deity's hands, who knows what will happen next" and actually do some science we might get more certainty and fewer surprises.
Most people who read El Reg are in IT, I cannot believe how many of you seem to have forgotten one of the very first things I ever learnt about computers - Garbage In = Garbage Out
I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that ALL of the climate prediction models are wrong for the simple reason that they are being fed incomplete (and often incorrect) data, which means that the information going in to them is Garbage.
I can think of plenty of reasons to look for alternative sources of energy, but climate change is not one of them and we shouldn't be being taxed on CO2 emissions or subsidizing inefficient energy technologies because of it.
I saw a recent comment that said the models don't fit with the fact that temperatures haven't changed much in the last 20 years, and perhaps they need to be corrected to include variations in solar output!
Since the Sun is the driving engine for climate, leaving it out seems to be a good reason for a "Garbage in- Garbage out' comment.
It's like simulating a plane in a wind tunnel, but leaving out the wind!
is for the clouds to sod off and let me see the comet C/2011 L4 PanStarrs in March (and comet C/2012 S1 ISON in November and December).
I do not know why I have had such a dismal run of lousy weather preventing me from spending more than a single night per month watching the stars (or indeed whether this is exceptional), I just want some clear skies!!
Ok the article says that they tested their assumptions going back 30 years in the data.
But let’s wind back a little and check out the untested assumptions here which seem to be as far as I can tell:
1. Climate is changing because of rising man made global warming due to CO2.
2. Weather is more extreme now than ever before. (not buying this for a second)
3. Point 2 is due to point 1.
Looking forward to the evidence they use to validate these points although I don’t expect to hear much more than something along the lines of “98% of climate activists say it’s happening” so our assumptions are totally validated.
This post has been deleted by its author
"These two factors are crucial for the mechanism we detected," Petoukhov said. "They result in an unnatural pattern of the mid-latitude air flow..."
Unnatural means, at least in this context, man-made. Perhaps his mind is already made up or perhaps what was intended was something more along the lines of "unprecedented" or "extremely unusual." Given the patterns have most likely been seen in the past when there were natural warming phenomena in place, I would prefer to think that this was something that was merely lost in translation rather than an a priori bias.
The article doesn't seem to address the ice growth in the Antarctic at all, and I'll bet readers in Kansas are scratching their heads.
What is most interesting is that, after 20 years with no noticeable warming, we can blame our current 'extreme' weather on AGW. I think this is all based on the same flawed computer models, which among other things ignore the effect of sun variations.
A bit of actual science, for the benefit of any of the lunatic mouth-breather denialists capable of understanding long words: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/11/on-record-breaking-extremes/
"Let’s perform a couple of thought-experiments that shed light on some basic properties of the statistics of record-breaking events, like unprecedented heat waves. I promise it won’t be complicated, but I can’t promise you won’t be surprised. [...] "
Quoting "realclimate" is right up there with Wiki as a source of dispassionate information on this subject.
Meanwhile, the only reliable record continues to show gradual warming consistent with the inter-glacial state of play.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Stop the presses: January 2013 spiked! AGW is now proven! We can all get on with our lives
1> Roy did not create the data, he just compiles and posts it. It is available other places, why do you care which link is posted? Posting the original source is generally regarded as a positive thing.
2>The data shows warming. You should be happy for confirmation
3> You religious bigotry is showing, pull up your slip!
"Climate scientists link global warming to extreme weather"
They're going to do as Global-Warming is a political agenda coming out of Fraternity-Science, not Elementary-Science camp, and heavy political groups, like hte Club of Rome.
All this time and no factor is given to cloud-seeding or other weather modification, even though storms, floods and drought are norms for this planet.
Recently the head of the IPCC admitted that there had been no warming for 17 years (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nothing-off-limits-in-climate-debate/story-e6frg6n6-1226583112134) However this was countered with some recent stuff about ocean warming so who knows? But the warmists go looking for something other climate bogeyman: weather events; problem is it just isn't true!
In Australia there is clear evidence from geology (sediments/corals/tree rings etc) of floods and droughts of truly biblical proportions that make anything we are experiencing at the moment pale into triviality. Further this is also present in the rest of the world e.g. sediments in the Gulf of Mexico etc; show that there have been storms that dwarf anything experienced in the last few hundred years of recorded history. It is ironic (or causality??) that these periods of weather instability usually coincide with colder periods in earth's history.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
