Global Warming/Climate Change/Global Weirding?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Yours appears to be do anything, even if it's wrong.

No.  And you know better than that.  Do many things.  Scientifically, in a measured, experimental fashion.  You remember lab experiments from school don't you?  Well, do that....on many fronts.

And many things ARE being done!  In many places around the world.  Most likely the best minds available....as opposed to the "bought out" hacks from the oil industry.  They may be scientifically technically competent, but are morally and intellectually dishonest with themselves.

[Conan71]

But why? Nothing you have posted, in fact nothing that anyone has posted that isn't falsehood filled crap funded by Koch, Exxon and big energy argues against global warming at all. There isn't a single shred of fact based argument that has been made that argues global warming is somehow wrong or a hoax. So why are you still a skeptic? What fact based, science based argument can you still make?

Your position is an emotional one, and it's been paid for millions of dollars in marketing and propaganda, it has no basis in science or evidence or facts.

If anything, the alarmist's position is one of emotion.  Mine actually is based in fact, a fair amount gleaned from government sources:

IPCC concludes that the average sea and land temps increased by 1.53F or .85C from 1880 to 2012.  Sorry, I don't see it as a cataclysm.  Note the NOAA graphic.  I don't believe the Koch Brothers have purchased NOAA.



Couple that with flattening or a slowdown over 16 years in warming as well as ice growing in the polar areas the last two years that tells me the earth likely has enough interworking parts to deal with warming and cooling to balance it out.  To be honest, with just the sheer increase in BTU output from transportation and industry over the last century, I'm surprised it has not warmed more, yet it has not. 

It's funny you mention the Kochs almost as these swashbuckling environmental polluters.  Billions of dollars are to be made in low emission flare and burner technology, of which Koch Industries gets a good market share through their burner and flare business units, some of which are located in Tulsa.  Their John Zink unit is a pioneer of ultra low NOx technology.  I work in the combustion industry and interface with chemists, physicists, and engineers at burner and flare companies as well as those who manufacture fired pressure vessels who have a far better grasp of climate and emissions than I do and who appear even more cynical and skeptical than I am. 

I believe it's the simple fact that many people don't consider 1.5 degrees over 134 years an alarming trend considering the wider swings throughout history.  But to listen to the emotional hysteria over it, people would have you believe it's gained 10 degrees and and NYC will be under water tomorrow.

[Red Arrow]

If anything, the alarmist's position is one of emotion.  Mine actually is based in fact, a fair amount gleaned from government sources:

IPCC concludes that the average sea and land temps increased by 1.53F or .85C from 1880 to 2012.  Sorry, I don't see it as a cataclysm.  Note the NOAA graphic.  I don't believe the Koch Brothers have purchased NOAA.



Couple that with flattening or a slowdown over 16 years in warming as well as ice growing in the polar areas the last two years that tells me the earth likely has enough interworking parts to deal with warming and cooling to balance it out.  To be honest, with just the sheer increase in BTU output from transportation and industry over the last century, I'm surprised it has not warmed more, yet it has not. 

It's funny you mention the Kochs almost as these swashbuckling environmental polluters.  Billions of dollars are to be made in low emission flare and burner technology, of which Koch Industries gets a good market share through their burner and flare business units, some of which are located in Tulsa.  Their John Zink unit is a pioneer of ultra low NOx technology.  I work in the combustion industry and interface with chemists, physicists, and engineers at burner and flare companies as well as those who manufacture fired pressure vessels who have a far better grasp of climate and emissions than I do and who appear even more cynical and skeptical than I am. 

I believe it's the simple fact that many people don't consider 1.5 degrees over 134 years an alarming trend considering the wider swings throughout history.  But to listen to the emotional hysteria over it, people would have you believe it's gained 10 degrees and and NYC will be under water tomorrow.

Interesting site.  Shows what would flood at various sea level increases.  Tulsa is safe for a while.  New Orleans, not so much.
http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=33.6312,-117.9149&z=4&t=3

[Conan71]

At 30 meters or less, you could water ski in Sacramento!

[Red Arrow]

At 30 meters or less, you could water ski in Sacramento!

I still think in feet rather than meters.  30 meters = approx 98 feet. That's a significant rise in sea level.  Algore would be proud.

[dbacksfan 2.0]

At 30 meters or less, you could water ski in Sacramento!

Ummm, you can water ski from Alcatraz to Sacramento now...........

[Conan71]

Ummm, you can water ski from Alcatraz to Sacramento now...........

That would be an awesome tourist expedition to sell.

[Gaspar]

If anything, the alarmist's position is one of emotion.  Mine actually is based in fact, a fair amount gleaned from government sources:

IPCC concludes that the average sea and land temps increased by 1.53F or .85C from 1880 to 2012.  Sorry, I don't see it as a cataclysm.  Note the NOAA graphic.  I don't believe the Koch Brothers have purchased NOAA.



Couple that with flattening or a slowdown over 16 years in warming as well as ice growing in the polar areas the last two years that tells me the earth likely has enough interworking parts to deal with warming and cooling to balance it out.  To be honest, with just the sheer increase in BTU output from transportation and industry over the last century, I'm surprised it has not warmed more, yet it has not.  


It's funny you mention the Kochs almost as these swashbuckling environmental polluters.  Billions of dollars are to be made in low emission flare and burner technology, of which Koch Industries gets a good market share through their burner and flare business units, some of which are located in Tulsa.  Their John Zink unit is a pioneer of ultra low NOx technology.  I work in the combustion industry and interface with chemists, physicists, and engineers at burner and flare companies as well as those who manufacture fired pressure vessels who have a far better grasp of climate and emissions than I do and who appear even more cynical and skeptical than I am.  

I believe it's the simple fact that many people don't consider 1.5 degrees over 134 years an alarming trend considering the wider swings throughout history.  But to listen to the emotional hysteria over it, people would have you believe it's gained 10 degrees and and NYC will be under water tomorrow.

We're a little cooler (by about 2 degrees) since the last few times this happened. Of course this is based on geology instead of 'climate science' and therefore does not follow the same political requirements.


The pattern however, does reliably duplicate itself, so there is a very high probability that the next 50,000 years will require a warmer jacket.

Even if we look at the sub-cycle taken from ice cores, sorry, geology stuff again, not 'climate science', you can only make the correlation with CO2 if you zoom in to about a hundred years and ignore just a little over 99% of the data available.



We can very accurately predict whether we get warmer or colder within the primary cycle (100s of thousands of years) and to some extent within the sub-cycle (10s of thousand of years), but you have to do quite a bit of acrobatics to infer a correlation to CO2, and go even further to isolate that to man-made CO2.  But. . . that's where politics is so important. Politics gives us the ability to make associations like this.


It's kinda like when I show my 5yo a picture of a bug taken with a microscope.  It's going to give him nightmares initially unless I explain that it's the size of a dust spec.  However, if my goal is to encourage some behavior, I could tell him that they are going to crawl all over him if his room is dirty.  What I've told him is true, and accurate.  The correlation between a dirty room and the dust mite is at best questionable, but he's 5 and would rarely question my authority.  I've simply omitted a massive amount of information, to purposefully motivate a behavior that has value to me.

$^

[BKDotCom]

after skimming this thread...
Apparently "teach the controversy" is working

[swake]

So now that the completely untrained armchair scientists are done analyzing NOAAs information, here's what NOAA actually said themselves it all means.


Front page summary:

State of the Climate in 2013 Report Release

Image of State of the Climate in 2013 Report Cover
In 2013, the vast majority of worldwide climate indicators—greenhouse gases, sea levels, global temperatures, etc.—continued to reflect trends of a warmer planet, according to the indicators assessed in the State of the Climate in 2013 report, released online July 17, 2014, by the American Meteorological Society.

Scientists from NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., served as the lead editors of the report, which was compiled by 425 scientists from 57 countries around the world (highlights, visuals, full report (link is external)). It provides a detailed update on global climate indicators, notable weather events, and other data collected by environmental monitoring stations and instruments on air, land, sea, and ice.

"These findings reinforce what scientists for decades have observed: that our planet is becoming a warmer place," said NOAA Administrator Kathryn Sullivan, Ph.D. "This report provides the foundational information we need to develop tools and services for communities, business, and nations to prepare for, and build resilience to, the impacts of climate change."

The report uses dozens of climate indicators to track patterns, changes, and trends of the global climate system, including greenhouse gases; temperatures throughout the atmosphere, ocean, and land; cloud cover; sea level; ocean salinity; sea ice extent; and snow cover. These indicators often reflect many thousands of measurements from multiple independent datasets. The report also details cases of unusual and extreme regional events, such as Super Typhoon Haiyan, which devastated portions of Southeast Asia in November 2013.

Here's the site for the full report:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140717_stateoftheclimate.html

[Gaspar]

So now that the completely untrained armchair scientists are done analyzing NOAAs information, here's what NOAA actually said themselves it all means.


Front page summary:
Here's the site for the full report:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2014/20140717_stateoftheclimate.html

And that is all absolutely and irrefutably true.  The dataset supports it 100% for the limited sample. 
It is also true and FACT that this creature will eat your skin!

I will share with you though, that a dust mite is only a quarter of a millimeter in size and poses no threat to you.

"Idiots" like myself, sometimes like to consider a larger dataset, and I realize that is very unacceptable for you.

[Conan71]

M'kay, some parts were cooler, others warmer.  It's the nature of "estimated" which leaves me a little underwhelmed. 

What's your solution to all this anyhow, Swake?  What are you doing about it?

To calculate global average temperature, four independent teams accessed air temperatures from weather stations on land and sea surface temperatures collected by ships and buoys. Each team used their own methods to analyze and merge the land and ocean datasets to estimate annual temperature for the whole globe. Though their methods differ, all four analyses are in close agreement.

2013 State of the Climate: Earth's surface temperature

Why it matters

Of all the planets in our neighborhood, Earth has a surface temperature that is uniquely friendly to life. That friendliness is the result of a balancing act between incoming sunlight and outgoing thermal energy—the heat radiated back to space by every part of the Earth system, from land to oceans to clouds and, especially, by the gases in the atmosphere. Surface temperature is one of several signals that indicate the status of Earth's heat budget. Earth's  long-term warming trend shows that the balance has changed: the atmosphere absorbs and radiates more heat (thermal infrared energy) than it used to.



Surface temperatures in 2013 compared to the 1981-2010 average. NOAA map by Dan Pisut, NOAA Environmental Visualization Lab, based on Merged Land and Ocean Surface Temperature data from the National Climatic Data Center. Adapted from Plate 2.1(c) in State of the Climate in 2013.
Surface temperatures in 2013 were warmer than average across most of the world. Notably, Australia had its warmest year since national records began in 1910. Far-western Asia and the far-western Pacific Ocean also saw record-high average temperatures. At the same time, a swath of central North America, the Pacific Ocean west of South America and along the equator, and a few other isolated locations saw cooler-than-average temperatures.

The impacts of temperature on people, agricultural activities, and natural ecosystem are more often related to extreme temperature events than they are to changes in long-term averages, so the 2013 State of the Climate report also included an analysis of worldwide temperature extremes since 1950.

The year 2013 ranked within the top 10 years for the frequency of warm days and in the bottom 10 years for the frequency of cool days. More warm days than average occurred over large parts of Europe, central and east Asia, and Australia, while fewer warm days than average were observed over central North America. Regional and global average time series of these statistics suggest that the increase in warm day frequency and decrease in cool night frequency is part of a long-term trend.



Multiple long-term records of Earth's average temperature (different colored lines) since the late nineteenth century show a similar pattern: year to year variability combined with a long-term warming trend. The lines shows how far above or below the 1981–2010 average (dashed line at zero) the combined land and ocean temperature has been each year since 1880. Graph adapted from Figure 2.1, in BAMS State of the Climate in 2013.
Globally-averaged surface temperature for 2013 was 0.36 - 0.38° Fahrenheit above the 1981–2010 average, placing it among the top 10 warmest years since record-keeping began. Depending on the dataset considered, the year ranked from second to sixth warmest among the 134 years on record. Relative warming of the equatorial Pacific from cooler-than-average La Niña conditions to ENSO-neutral conditions helped elevate global average temperature slightly above the two previous years.

Since 1976, every year including 2013 has had an average global temperature above the long-term average. Over this 37-year period, temperature warmed at an average of 0.50 °F (0.28 °C) per decade over land and 0.20 °F (0.11 °C) per decade over the ocean.

To calculate global average temperature, four independent teams accessed air temperatures from weather stations on land and sea surface temperatures collected by ships and buoys. Each team used their own methods to analyze and merge the land and ocean datasets to estimate annual temperature for the whole globe. Though their methods differ, all four analyses are in close agreement.

References
A. Sánchez-Lugo, J. J. Kennedy, and P. Berrisford. 2014: [Global climate] Temperature [in "State of the Climate in 2013"]. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 95 (7), S9-S10.

M.G. Donat and R.J.H. Dunn. 2014: [Global Climate] Temperature Extreme Indices in 2013 [in "State of the Climate in 2013"]. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 95 (7), S12-S13.

NOAA National Climatic Data Center, State of the Climate - Global Analysis - Annual 2013, published online January 2014, retrieved on June 30, 2014 from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/13

[swake]

And that is all absolutely and irrefutably true.  The dataset supports it 100% for the limited sample.  
It is also true and FACT that this creature will eat your skin!

I will share with you though, that a dust mite is only a quarter of a millimeter in size and poses no threat to you.

"Idiots" like myself, sometimes like to consider a larger dataset, and I realize that is very unacceptable for you.

You are always quite the expert at everything. You prove it all the time.

In fact, why don't you go tell your IT director about your ridiculous your statement about Android being a superior business platform and see how fast he starts laughing at you.

[Red Arrow]

So now that the completely untrained armchair scientists are done analyzing NOAAs information, here's what NOAA actually said themselves it all means.

Who better than the experts could manipulate the data to a desired conclusion?

[Gaspar]

You are always quite the expert at everything. You prove it all the time.

In fact, why don't you go tell your IT director about your ridiculous your statement about Android being a superior business platform and see how fast he starts laughing at you.

Probably not.  My IT director is an "Idiot" too. We have experience porting applications to both platforms (also Windows phone/tablets).  Can't touch Android for price, reliability, battery life, and a whole host of other factors related to managing the devices on the network.

But then again, we're "Idiots" so there is that.