Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

More Warming News!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • More Warming News!

    At least they admit that there was a hiatus in warming:

    A new study based on 1,000 years of temperature records suggests global warming is not progressing as fast as it would under the most severe emissions scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

    “Based on our analysis, a middle-of-the-road warming scenario is more likely, at least for now,” said Patrick T. Brown, a doctoral student in climatology at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment. “But this could change.”

    The Duke-led study shows that natural variability in surface temperatures -- caused by interactions between the ocean and atmosphere, and other natural factors -- can account for observed changes in the recent rates of warming from decade to decade.

    The researchers say these “climate wiggles” can slow or speed the rate of warming from decade to decade, and accentuate or offset the effects of increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. If not properly explained and accounted for, they may skew the reliability of climate models and lead to over-interpretation of short-term temperature trends.

    “By comparing our model against theirs, we found that climate models largely get the ‘big picture’ right but seem to underestimate the magnitude of natural decade-to-decade climate wiggles,” Brown said. “Our model shows these wiggles can be big enough that they could have accounted for a reasonable portion of the accelerated warming we experienced from 1975 to 2000, as well as the reduced rate in warming that occurred from 2002 to 2013.”

    Further comparative analysis of the models revealed another intriguing insight.

    Statistically, it’s pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections,” Brown said. “Hiatus periods of 11 years or longer are more likely to occur under a middle-of-the-road scenario.”
    https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/globa...st-case-models
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  • #2
    Nobody has denied that the average temperature reading was flat, but it wasn't clear whether this meant that warming had stopped, or whether it was merely a statistical fluke. Everything points to it being a statistical fluke.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
      Nobody has denied that the average temperature reading was flat, but it wasn't clear whether this meant that warming had stopped, or whether it was merely a statistical fluke. Everything points to it being a statistical fluke.
      They also said: Statistically, it’s pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections.

      So the IPCC pretty much got it wrong.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
        Nobody has denied that the average temperature reading was flat, but it wasn't clear whether this meant that warming had stopped, or whether it was merely a statistical fluke. Everything points to it being a statistical fluke.
        I love that word - "fluke". Anything I don't want to consider as a real factor I can toss into the "fluke" category.

        (Interestingly enough, my favorite measuring instruments are Flukes! )
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          They also said: Statistically, it’s pretty unlikely that an 11-year hiatus in warming, like the one we saw at the start of this century, would occur if the underlying human-caused warming was progressing at a rate as fast as the most severe IPCC projections.

          So the IPCC pretty much got it wrong.
          The IPCC's worst-case-scenario might not be it. They have several.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            I love that word - "fluke". Anything I don't want to consider as a real factor I can toss into the "fluke" category.

            (Interestingly enough, my favorite measuring instruments are Flukes! )
            Fluke is also shorter to say than the p-value of whether the current semi-flatline of temperature indicates a lull in temperature is evidence of the global temperature having ceased its long term trend is low. Basically, its not big enough of a thing. Its semi-unlikely giving the the worst case scenario, but something like 1% unlikely isn't impossible, and beyond its well within the range of the other models.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
              The IPCC's worst-case-scenario might not be it. They have several.
              Yet none of them predicted this kind of hiatus - correct? They also said that these natural "wiggles" could be the main driver for the warming from 1975 to 2000. That is damning since we were constantly told that the warming in those years was directly caused by man.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                Fluke is also shorter to say than the p-value of whether the current semi-flatline of temperature indicates a lull in temperature is evidence of the global temperature having ceased its long term trend is low. Basically, its not big enough of a thing. Its semi-unlikely giving the the worst case scenario, but something like 1% unlikely isn't impossible, and beyond its well within the range of the other models.
                I'll leave that to you. Unlike MOST of the folks who pretend to be experts on this, I readily admit I am not.
                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  I'll leave that to you. Unlike MOST of the folks who pretend to be experts on this, I readily admit I am not.
                  Seriously I'm not, but I did get a very course in statistics.

                  Basically the global average temperature has some uncertainties that mean you need to look at the trend over three decades. Thankfully we have excellent proxies going back thousands of years, though for some odd reason tree ring data diverges around the age of industrialization (this was the decline that was 'hidden' in the review... one temperature proxy out of 20+ goes down, means something is wrong with that proxy, and in a pretty concise report for politicians this was cut out. It was later found out what caused that proxy to deviate.).

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Yet none of them predicted this kind of hiatus - correct?
                    You can't predict local randomness, only long term global trends.

                    They also said that these natural "wiggles" could be the main driver for the warming from 1975 to 2000. That is damning since we were constantly told that the warming in those years was directly caused by man.
                    Most is not all, what they're trying to get at is while the warming from 1975 to 2000 is very sharp, alarmingly sharp, it might not be the worst-case-model scenario which it seemed earlier to fit. These scientists are definitely not arguing that global warming is not happening. Just that its not going at the absolute highest rate ever predicted by the IPCC.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                      Seriously I'm not, but I did get a very course in statistics.
                      You lost me at p-value.

                      Basically the global average temperature has some uncertainties that mean you need to look at the trend over three decades.
                      Why not over three centuries, or millennia?

                      Thankfully we have excellent proxies going back thousands of years, though for some odd reason tree ring data diverges around the age of industrialization (this was the decline that was 'hidden' in the review... one temperature proxy out of 20+ goes down, means something is wrong with that proxy, and in a pretty concise report for politicians this was cut out. It was later found out what caused that proxy to deviate.).
                      I think we have "weather", and sometimes it's hot and sometimes it's cold.

                      I shall bow out due to my gross ignorance on this subject.
                      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        You lost me at p-value.
                        Hence fluke.

                        Why not over three centuries, or millennia?
                        The wiggles aren't THAT big. The average growth in temperature is low enough, and the wiggles big enough that you need to look over a sufficiently long period. Its like looking at the Dow Jones Index of the stock market during a time of market growth. Day to day? Random up and down. Week to week? Random up and down. Month to month? Random up and down, trending slightly upwards... though local seasons interplay. Year to year? Random up and down, but a trend emerging. Decade to decade? Clear trend.

                        I think we have "weather", and sometimes it's hot and sometimes it's cold.
                        There you go, now imagine weather being a couple degrees hotter in a hundred years on average, and you've got the idea.

                        I shall bow out due to my gross ignorance on this subject.
                        Reminds me that you need to teach me that art of cow poking for when I visit the hermit monastery again. Could come in handy with their cows.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                          Reminds me that you need to teach me that art of cow poking for when I visit the hermit monastery again. Could come in handy with their cows.
                          But aren't we CONTRIBUTING to global warming by venting cow farts into the atmosphere?
                          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                            Most is not all, what they're trying to get at is while the warming from 1975 to 2000 is very sharp, alarmingly sharp, it might not be the worst-case-model scenario which it seemed earlier to fit. These scientists are definitely not arguing that global warming is not happening. Just that its not going at the absolute highest rate ever predicted by the IPCC.
                            No Len, I'm sorry these guys are saying that the main driver of the warming in those years was not man - that is in direct contradiction to what the warmists claimed. Well perhaps most of the warning over the last century wasn't driven by man either. How would we know?
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              But aren't we CONTRIBUTING to global warming by venting cow farts into the atmosphere?
                              You mean cow farts don't find their ways out of a cow one way or the other?

                              And yes, by a percent or so, mostly its industrial and transport CO2. Even though cow gas outlet compared to our CO2 by weight is miniscule methane is orders of magnitude more powerful as a greenhouse gas than CO2... and cows kinda let out of a lot of it during a day. I remember calculating it down in Nat Sci at some point, it was actually not entirely negligible.

                              I mean come on Cow Poke you know cows let off a lot of gas. You have a job, poking a knife into them, to help them release built up gas otherwise they'll burst.

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 09:32 AM
                              16 responses
                              89 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Stoic
                              by Stoic
                               
                              Started by mossrose, 11-28-2020, 03:05 PM
                              7 responses
                              85 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Gondwanaland  
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, 11-28-2020, 01:53 PM
                              26 responses
                              127 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Starlight, 11-27-2020, 11:51 PM
                              4 responses
                              43 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by Ronson, 11-27-2020, 07:32 PM
                              109 responses
                              497 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Stoic
                              by Stoic
                               
                              Working...
                              X