Climate Change is here and man made

[Chancy Termites]

Give me 10000 emails of yours in a searchable format and I can prove you're a Neo Nazi, a left wing lunatic or a Martian

Absolutely not. If you searched through every work email I'd ever sent, all you'd find would be me doing things by the book.

Same for most people I would have thought.

 

[lazza]

That's hardly surprsing since there's been no rise in global temperature for around 18 years.

No they aren't. NASA GISS data is derived from surface stations combined with satellite data for SSTs.

Correct. Which is why satellite data is considered the most accurate.

"The strongest evidence for the hiatus comes from the satellite (microwave) observations of bulk atmospheric temperature, pioneered by Christy and Spencer. Analyses of these data have shown a statistically significant hiatus for a period as long as 21 years." - Prof. J. Curry.

And satellite data shows:

This makes no sense. I make a comment that the data only shows surface temperature, and you say "no they don't, they show land surface temperature and sea surface temperature".... er, both surface temperatures! And then provide another graph showing atmospheric temperature.

As to your question about climate change deniers, well you tell me what you deny! Those that I have debated with in the past differ in what they deny; some deny there is any climate change, some deny that climate change is not due to human activities. So I guess you have a different viewpoint on this, so please enlighten me. Another nice graphic to illustrate this:

 

[crazyg]

It's been a lot warmer and also a lot cooler in the last thousand years no?

I believe it was a lot warmer in certain areas of Wolfsburg on Tuesday night - is that proof enough?

 

[SWP's back]

So you don't think these floods are not as a direct result of global warmings?

What an idiotic thing to say.

Try and pick a year in the last one hundred years without an area suffering flooding.

So to answer your question, no Mike. I do not.

 

[SWP's back]

I'll come back to this later hopefully, but whilst nobody argues that the climate is in flux the City analogy is that recently it has taken a massive and unprecedented step forwards that is incomprehensible to the natural order. Therefore whilst we had an influx of money that boosted us, the influx of greenhouses gases similarly boosted the global temperature.

I'd also like to point out that only the extreme crazies contend that this isn't happening; the argument tends to be in the details of how much and how much is human caused. This is a great progress for scientific discourse as now the public discourse is only 15 years behind which is rather good comparatively. Obviously excluding the science based arguments that some skeptics in this thread an elsewhere have made.

Is it not also true that no one knows whether it could be reversed, whether it would have sent beneficial or adverse affect and also, that taxing 4x4s in the UK will do the sum total of fuck all for 'saving the planet' given the industrialisation of the third world?

 

[Mike D]

What an idiotic thing to say.

Try and pick a year in the last one hundred years without an area suffering flooding.

The is no point talking to you, you're as thick as Donald Trump and just out to WUM.

If you want a proper conversation on the affects of global warming such as the dramatic changes in weather conditions then lets have one.

Otherwise I'm not falling for the bait this time.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

The is no point talking to you, you're as thick as Donald Trump and just out to WUM.

If you want a proper conversation on the affects of global warming such as the dramatic changes in weather conditions then lets have one.

Otherwise I'm not falling for the bait this time.

Could you provide any statistical evidence that the number of extreme weather events is increasing?

 

[kas_tippler]

To show a photo of flooding or a polar bear clinging on to some ice and try to pass it off as evidence of man made climate change is misleading and to be honest downright dishonest.

 

[Nails]

Fuck me, the deniers are idiots to a 'man'.

 

[inbetween]

Could you provide any statistical evidence that the number of extreme weather events is increasing?

The stupid thing with the media at the moment is they class a bit of rain as an extreme event, it is only extreme by the measure that people have had their houses flooded, it is actually a very unextreme event, extreme would be something like 25'C recorded in January or a hurricane of the likes we have never seen before. What happened in Cumbria isn't great but then the only areas that flooded were those most vulnerable to it, big surprise. I've seen a lot of chatter this week about climate change being responsible for what has happened and it is all chimed in as though we have never seen a flood before in the entirety of human history. I would love to hear a real definition of extreme in the weather context.

Yes the rainfall broke all records but we have only been recording this data for probably 100 years so of course it is bound to break records eventually simply because a record must always exist for something you measure. It's like recording temperature over many year's and year on year it is 30'C, the next year is recorded as 31'C, should that be classed as extreme?

I wish they would realize that climate change is normal, the Earth has undergone ice ages, fire ages and like now relatively flat ages. It hasn't not rained for the last several billion years and only this week has it flooded in Cumbria, climate change being directly responsible for a bit of extra rain is complete rubbish, someone will tell me it is also responsible for the relatively decent summer we have had too.

There is not much point in worrying about climate change because it is inevitable that at some point it will change in some way again. All it takes in fact is a world event such as a large volcano going off and that obliterates all records on CO2 and so on by itself.

I actually don't see myself as a denier but I don't think we can do anything about it for the most part and nor should we when there are far more pressing issues to be worrying about and expending resources on.

 

[lazza]

You've missed two fundamental points to the whole climate change debate:

Yes, extreme events have always happened, floods, storms, heat-waves, etc. But the frequency is increasing, and the likelihood of an extreme weather event is becoming higher. So one event on its own does indeed mean nothing, but an accumulation of events is a far more important statistic and points to an underlying change in climate.

And yes, climate has changed in the past, but at far, far lower rates. The rate of change in global temperatures we are currently going through cannot be simply explained by "natural" phenomena (when there have been rapid temperature changes in prehistory, these can usually be explained by some significant event). But what we do learn from the previous big changes in climate is that it is pretty catastrophic, and usually leads to mass extinctions. This is explained better in this video:

 

[lazza]

Just to illustrate the first point about extreme weather events, here is a chart that shows the ratio of the "record highs" and the "record lows" recorded across the USA, by decade. It shows a substantial increase in the number of times a new high temperature is recorded, in comparison to the number of times a new low temperature is recorded, which increases decade by decade. One possible conclusion from this is that extreme high temperatures were almost twice as likely to be recorded in the 2000s than in the 1950s.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

Just to illustrate the first point about extreme weather events, here is a chart that shows the ratio of the "record highs" and the "record lows" recorded across the USA, by decade. It shows a substantial increase in the number of times a new high temperature is recorded, in comparison to the number of times a new low temperature is recorded, which increases decade by decade. One possible conclusion from this is that extreme high temperatures were almost twice as likely to be recorded in the 2000s than in the 1950s.

Not sure how a "record" high temp is an extreme!
Anyway Ill see your bar graph for north America and raise you Global Cyclones:

 

[Ancient Citizen]

The stupid thing with the media at the moment is they class a bit of rain as an extreme event, it is only extreme by the measure that people have had their houses flooded, it is actually a very unextreme event, extreme would be something like 25'C recorded in January or a hurricane of the likes we have never seen before. What happened in Cumbria isn't great but then the only areas that flooded were those most vulnerable to it, big surprise. I've seen a lot of chatter this week about climate change being responsible for what has happened and it is all chimed in as though we have never seen a flood before in the entirety of human history. I would love to hear a real definition of extreme in the weather context.

Yes the rainfall broke all records but we have only been recording this data for probably 100 years so of course it is bound to break records eventually simply because a record must always exist for something you measure. It's like recording temperature over many year's and year on year it is 30'C, the next year is recorded as 31'C, should that be classed as extreme?

I wish they would realize that climate change is normal, the Earth has undergone ice ages, fire ages and like now relatively flat ages. It hasn't not rained for the last several billion years and only this week has it flooded in Cumbria, climate change being directly responsible for a bit of extra rain is complete rubbish, someone will tell me it is also responsible for the relatively decent summer we have had too.

There is not much point in worrying about climate change because it is inevitable that at some point it will change in some way again. All it takes in fact is a world event such as a large volcano going off and that obliterates all records on CO2 and so on by itself.

I actually don't see myself as a denier but I don't think we can do anything about it for the most part and nor should we when there are far more pressing issues to be worrying about and expending resources on.

With the addition of an almost wilful desire to ignore population growth, this is exactly my stance.

 

[SWP's back]

The is no point talking to you, you're as thick as Donald Trump and just out to WUM.

If you want a proper conversation on the affects of global warming such as the dramatic changes in weather conditions then lets have one.

Otherwise I'm not falling for the bait this time.

It's not bait you fucking idiot.

Answer my question or point me out a year where no flooding occurred in any part of the country.

If not, jog on and stop quoting me you wasted blow blow job.

To say that just because parts of Cumbria flooded last week is definitive proof of anthropoligical climate change is the most moronic thing you've managed on here. Which is some doing.

 

[Balti]

With the addition of an almost wilful desire to ignore population growth, this is exactly my stance.

yep me too

these things work in massive cycles and we are still coming out of the last ice age is all

being Mancunian I I can't get too excited about rain however heavy it might be

especially when it's flood plains in flooding shocker

 

[malg]

It's not bait you fucking idiot.

Answer my question or point me out a year where no flooding occurred in any part of the country.

If not, jog on and stop quoting me you wasted blow blow job.

To say that just because parts of Cumbria flooded last week is definitive proof of anthropoligical climate change is the most moronic thing you've managed on here. Which is some doing.

Oy, you owe for a thread bump......not even a fucking thank you.

 

[Jim Tolmie's Underpants]

This makes no sense. I make a comment that the data only shows surface temperature...

Let's look at your quote:

The most important aspect of this is that all the data sets are surface temperature, which accounts for a very tiny proportion of the planet's heat sink. Even then, the article shows that the same data could be interpreted in many different ways...

If you look at the graphs contained in the article you're refering to -http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/06/hiatus-controversy-show-me-the-data/ - they contain data for NASA GISS data, which is derived from surface stations combined with satellite data for SSTs.

So, yes, you're comment "that the data only shows surface temperature" was wrong.

and you say "no they don't, they show land surface temperature and sea surface temperature"

Wrong again. I did no such thing. My actual quote:

No they aren't. NASA GISS data is derived from surface stations combined with satellite data for SSTs.

As to your question about climate change deniers, well you tell me what you deny! Those that I have debated with in the past differ in what they deny; some deny there is any climate change, some deny that climate change is not due to human activities. So I guess you have a different viewpoint on this, so please enlighten me. Another nice graphic to illustrate this:

Oh, dear. "nice graph"? I suppose it's "nice" if you like bogus bullshit.

The funny thing about that graph is that a graph showing the exact opposite can be constructed, depending on the time frame. Just as ‘figures don’t lie, but liars figure’, bogus charts like that can be contructed. What is amazing is the number of credulous, unthinking people that bogus chart has fooled.

Each of the steps in their escalator clearly shows a short-term trend that’s flat or cools slightly. SkepticalScience misrepresented the trend of the “fourth step”. The time period they selected is November 1994 to December 2000. As it turns out, the only dataset that shows a flat trend during that period is the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index. Both HADCRUT4 and NCDC have significant warming trends from November 1994 to December 2000 at about 0.08 to 0.09 deg C per decade. The average of the three datasets is approximately 0.06 deg C/decade, and that is a significant warming trend.

Actual Linear Trends During Fourth Step of Escalator

How significant is that 0.06 deg C per decade trend? It’s comparable to the trend in global surface temperatures since 1880!

What “The Escalator” would look like if SkepticalScience had used the real linear trend for the fourth step:

If you are going to use gifs in order to belittle 'skeptics', at least use ones that are not based on false, innacurate data.

 

[Balti]

Let's look at your quote:



If you look at the graphs contained in the article you're refering to -http://judithcurry.com/2015/11/06/hiatus-controversy-show-me-the-data/ - they contain data for NASA GISS data, which is derived from surface stations combined with satellite data for SSTs.

So, yes, you're comment "that the data only shows surface temperature" was wrong.



Wrong again. I did no such thing. My actual quote:





Ah, Skepticalscience's “The Escalator” gif animation. Oh, dear. The funny thing about that graph is that a graph showing the exact opposite can be constructed, depending on the time frame. Just as ‘figures don’t lie, but liars figure’, bogus charts like that can be contructed. What is amazing is the number of credulous, unthinking people that bogus chart has fooled.

Each of the steps in their escalator clearly shows a short-term trend that’s flat or cools slightly. SkepticalScience misrepresented the trend of the “fourth step”. The time period they selected is November 1994 to December 2000. As it turns out, the only dataset that shows a flat trend during that period is the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index. Both HADCRUT4 and NCDC have significant warming trends from November 1994 to December 2000 at about 0.08 to 0.09 deg C per decade. The average of the three datasets is approximately 0.06 deg C/decade, and that is a significant warming trend.

Actual Linear Trends During Fourth Step of Escalator

How significant is that 0.06 deg C per decade trend? It’s comparable to the trend in global surface temperatures since 1880!

What “The Escalator” would look like if SkepticalScience had used the real linear trend for the fourth step:

If you are going to use gifs in order to belittle 'skeptics', at least use ones that are not based on false, innacurate data.

the last ice age that we are still emerging from started a bit before 1970 tbf

 

[kas_tippler]

Just done Bramhall park run and I can assure you that the weather is exactly what you'd expect in December.