Climate change

Cavey · **Posted:** Sat Apr 16, 2016 14:05

Hang on, I'm cherry picking data more than anyone else... For that to be true, I'd have to make claims as based on a few days' data, let alone 3 months (lol). However, my substantive point was, and is, this is demonstrative of how desperate people are to grasp even the tiniest straw of 'evidence', because the real stuff is most conspicuous by its absence.

As for your other remarks, Curio, that "global temperatures have been rising on trend for a long time" is bollocks; for one thing the 15+ year hiatus was not foreseen before the event, not even at all, and as I linked to the last time I stepped into this whole Alice in Wonderland bullshit arena, even the Met Office themselves acknowledged this huge lull (and tried to present a RETROSPECTIVE argument to fit the after the facts data, just like those "smartest minds on the planet" repeatedly have to do because their models don't fucking work)

I note, also, you "couldn't be bothered" to address my point about Tata being given a whole bunch of extra carbon credits that they did not need, for just one plant (for free), which they were able to legitimately sell for a billion quid to other secondary producer factories, who would have all passed on this vast, entirely unmandated subsidy (to an Indian megacorp), for just one factory, to predominantly EU consumers etc. (Oh, and said carbon credits would've enabled them to cheerfully belch over their quota CO2 to atmosphere, to boot, the whole reason they had to "buy" them off Tata and whoever else in the first place... Great system, there, what a laughable, absolute crock of shit, from top to bottom). Yeah, sorry to be an off message Flat Earther on this...

Lol. No wonder you "can't be bothered".

Laters, taters.

/grabs Porsche keys

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32619

Cavey wrote:

for one thing the 15+ year hiatus was not foreseen before the event

Here's this hiatus in context, for anyone else who is interested (I have zero interest in talking to Cavey about this stuff.)

As you can see, it definitely looks significant.

Quote:

I note, also, you "couldn't be bothered" to address my point about Tata being given a whole bunch of extra carbon credits that they did not need, for just one plant (for free), which they were able to legitimately sell for a billion quid to other secondary producer factories, who would have all passed on this vast, entirely unmandated subsidy (to an Indian megacorp), for just one factory, to predominantly EU consumers etc. (Oh, and said carbon credits would've enabled them to cheerfully belch over their quota CO2 to atmosphere, to boot, the whole reason they had to "buy" them off Tata and whoever else in the first place... Great system, there, what a laughable, absolute crock of shit, from top to bottom). Yeah, sorry to be an off message Flat Earther on this...

So "here is an example of governmental and industrial mutual corruption" somehow proves that climate change is real. If I found some example of a company dumping mercury in rivers and the authorities being bribed the other way, would that refute the medical science that says that ingesting mercury is harmful?

Cavey · **Posted:** Sat Apr 16, 2016 16:11

Except, of course, this isn't the hiatus being referred to, as you well know. Go check that previous Met Office link, and innumerable past posts for further details; now it's my turn to say CBA doing it all again when clearly you're not even remotely engaged here.

Quote:

Q.1 “First, please confirm that they do indeed reveal no warming trend since 1997.”

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°C/decade, amounting to a temperature increase of 0.05°C over that period

Met Office link, as previously provided by me and ignored by you: https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2012/10/1 ... ober-2012/

Ooh, 15 YEARS of data (i.e. not 3 months, in an El Nino year at that), from 1997 onwards, not 1950 or whenever you're now claiming (that'll be ANOTHER unexplained hiatus, oopsie) and a rise of ONE TWENTIETH OF ONE DEGREE over that ENTIRE 15 YEAR PERIOD, as according to the Met Office, as previously linked. Wow, one twentieth of a degree, pass round the life rafts; just what the models predicted, yeah? Oh no. Yeah, no hiatus here, eh guv. :roll:

As for your other point - way to miss the point. I was showing that in just one small example, an Indian megacorp LEGITIMATELY skimmed hard-pressed and austerity-weary EU consumers (ultimately) to the tune of a billion pounds - for absolutely nothing (in the name of Climate Change policy), in effect an 'inverse windfall tax'. Except, of course, windfall taxes tend to be mandated by the people, whereas this clearly isn't, and only came to light at all because of the issues there. Further, said policy actually goes AGAINST climate change since the whole purpose of it is to allow multiple carbon emitters to buy their way to churn out vastly more of the stuff than they're targeted to, and in the case of the biggest ones, they get to do it for nothing and get to sell their overbid carbon credits - that they got given for nowt - for many millions or billions, and none of it making any difference to their activities carbon-wise either. And all the while, the Chinese et al do what they damn well like, no doubt having a good belly-laugh at us stupid Europeans destroying our manufacturing over this BS, whilst they dump their subsidised steel (as produced with scant, if any, environmental concerns) on us. Etc.

I mean, you just have to LOL, right Doc?

Mimi · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 25588

Doctor Glyndwr wrote:

This is fine.

I think climate change is scary as all heck and needs immediate attention. I think it's probably the most significant global threat we have, yet even to me that graph seems somewhat lacking. It's four years, but where are 2011-2013, where are other outlier years in comparison?

I'm not saying it's not significant, as it might well be, but it's very difficult to actually tell with so little comparible data.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

But your start point is 1997. Look at the graph - 1997 is a record, record high, and you're using it as your baseline for the 15 year period following it. That makes no sense. If you do 1996-2012 or 1998-2012 there is no hiatus. It's just the fact that you've chosen a record high year as your baseline for saying there was a hiatus.

Indeed, if you just look at the rest of the exact same reply you've quoted above, it completely contradicts the point you're making:

Quote:

equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As we’ve 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°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°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.

Cavey · **Posted:** Sat Apr 16, 2016 16:38

I was watching a Horizon programme on catch up the other night; the current thinking is that baryonic matter - protons, neutrons, electrons etc. - only makes up FOUR PERCENT of the actual universe's mass, the other 96% being dark matter and dark energy, things we know almost nothing about at all. Relativity itself is called into question; the irrefutable OBSERVED fact is that the universe's rate of expansion is increasing, seemingly even the second law of thermodynamics is flouted. The ultimate free lunch indeed.

If you'd have said this even 15 years ago, many years after the (hopelessly inaccurate as it transpires) global warming models were produced and so stoutly defended, you'd have been laughed at - yet here we are. I have every confidence that in another 15-20 years, the scientific zeitgeist will have moved substatntially on, if not entirely. If a theory cannot be validated by observations and real world data, then that's an issue, at least for me.

Cavey · **Posted:** Sat Apr 16, 2016 16:56

Cras wrote:

But your start point is 1997. Look at the graph - 1997 is a record, record high, and you're using it as your baseline for the 15 year period following it. That makes no sense. If you do 1996-2012 or 1998-2012 there is no hiatus. It's just the fact that you've chosen a record high year as your baseline for saying there was a hiatus.

But that's horseshit though Cras. There's ONE graph in that Met Office piece, and that shows that 1997 doesn't even make it into their top 10 hottest years! What is it with Climate Change; do people somehow glaze over and lose their critical faculties or something? I could understand it if this was somehow buried in the detail but it's absolutely blindingly obvious, on the one graph they publish in that very short piece..? FFS man, seriously.

Quote:

Indeed, if you just look at the rest of the exact same reply you've quoted above, it completely contradicts the point you're making:

Quote:

equally we could calculate the linear trend from 1999, during the subsequent La Nina, and show a more substantial warming.

As we’ve 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°C/decade (or 0.15°C/decade in the NCDC dataset, 0.16°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.

I don't think it does, though. I purposely used this info from a "hostile" source; very few bodies have a greater vested interest in, and are more enthusiastic evangelists of 'global warming' than the very expensively funded Met Office, after all. To you, they have unimpeachable credibility, so if they're saying temperatures didn't go up for 15 years, then presumably you'll listen (hah!), and it also is completely at odds with the above graph posted by Doc, too. Look, whether you, they, DocG or anyone else likes it or not, the FACT of the matter is that for this 15 year period (i.e. a tad longer than 3 months) there was fuck all in the way of a global temperature rise, end of story, dare I say 'the best kind of correct'. More polite members of society than I might refer to this as a (FIFTEEN YEAR) "hiatus".

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Cavey wrote:

if they're saying temperatures didn't go up for 15 years, then presumably you'll listen (hah!)

But...they're specifically not saying that. I don't know where you're getting this idea from. They're saying that within the overall rise there are (as you'd expect) a variance of highs and lows, which tend to correlate with El Nino and El Nina years. 1997/8 was El Nino, 2012 was El Nina. So if you totally cherry pick and say was there a rise between 1997 and 2012 (and completely ignore every year in between) then no, there wasn't. Congratulations. You've mangled a pretty damn bloody obvious 60 year straight line rising trend to find a single data point that supports your opinion.

I can do the same thing, it's easy. 1992 was a record low and 1998 was a record high. Use those figures for your baseline and suddenly you've got a massive 0.2C rise in just 5 years. But I know that's junk science. So you do the sensible thing and plot the whole lot out. And if you can't look at the last 60 years of numbers and see an upward trend then that's some unbelievably powerful cognitive dissonance going on there.

Cavey · **Posted:** Sat Apr 16, 2016 17:28

Sigh. OK last go, as sadly I'm at work and have stuff to do.

Look at DocG's graph. Tell me how I can get a zero global temperature increase as taken between 1997 and 2013 - as confirmed by the Met Office themselves. I'm all ears.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Cavey wrote:

Sigh. OK last go, as sadly I'm at work and have stuff to do.

Look at DocG's graph. Tell me how I can get a zero global temperature increase as taken between 1997 and 2013 - as confirmed by the Met Office themselves. I'm all ears.

I am also at work, which I why I'm sat here replying

On DocG's graph, 2007/8 is so unbelievably obviously a massive positive outlier above the trend line that of course if you use it as your starting point your 15-year measurement is totally non-representative of the overall trend

Cavey · **Posted:** Sat Apr 16, 2016 17:43

Meh, bad luck old man, working Saturdays sucks, which explains why I am grumpy.

Look, seriously, I just cannot square the circle whereby the Met Office themselves say that between 1997-2013 there was only one-twentieth of one degree temperature increase overall AND that most of the years following 1997 were all warmer than it, i.e. starting from hottest, 2010, 2005, 1998 (the very following year), 2003, 1006, 2009, 2002, 2007, 2004, 2001 and 2011.

Unless, by 1997 referred to in their text, they actually mean (and show) 1998.... whoops.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Pretty sure they do mean 98, yeah. In which case the dataset they post and the graph doc posts completely correlate and we all believe in Global Warming again

Cavey · **Posted:** Sat Apr 16, 2016 17:55

Cras wrote:

Pretty sure they do mean 98, yeah. In which case the dataset they post and the graph doc posts completely correlate and we all believe in Global Warming again

Heh.

Except I'm really not convinced the graphs correlate; although difficult to compare on a half-arsed by eye basis, the Met Office ranked warmest years seems to strongly suggest an arrested rate of increase in the 2000s, as following sharper increases in the 90s, whereas Doc's best line of fit suggests aggressively steep increases throughout the 90s and 2000s.

To be fair, however, I do have to concede that the Met Office graph *does* show an increase in global temperatures, say, from c.1970 to the present day of c.+0.5 deg C overall, and there is a clearly observable, real overriding trend for increases.

As to the true significance of +0.5deg C (and, seemingly, a slowing rate of increase), well, that's no doubt debatable.

Edit

More stuff on the global warming slowdown here, from another pro-climate change source, NASA

Quote:

Between 1998 and 2012, climate scientists observed a slowdown in the rate at which the Earth's surface air temperature was rising. While the rise in global mean surface air temperature has continued, between 1998 and 2012 the increase was approximately one third of that from 1951 to 2012.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/1141/

NASA then go on to offer their explanations as to why this has been found to occur, but irrespective, my point is that it is real and observable.

Malc · **Posted:** Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:48

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... bal-record

This looks like it was based on the same place that Gaywood's graph came from on Friday.

Lots of record highs mentioned in there...

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32619

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/us/re ... 29071&_r=1

Quote:

In January, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced grants totaling $1 billion in 13 states to help communities adapt to climate change, by building stronger levees, dams and drainage systems.

One of those grants, $48 million for Isle de Jean Charles, is something new: the first allocation of federal tax dollars to move an entire community struggling with the impacts of climate change. The divisions the effort has exposed and the logistical and moral dilemmas it has presented point up in microcosm the massive problems the world could face in the coming decades as it confronts a new category of displaced people who have become known as climate refugees.
...
Around the globe, governments are confronting the reality that as human-caused climate change warms the planet, rising sea levels, stronger storms, increased flooding, harsher droughts and dwindling freshwater supplies could drive the world’s most vulnerable people from their homes. Between 50 million and 200 million people — mainly subsistence farmers and fishermen — could be displaced by 2050 because of climate change, according to estimates by the United Nations University Institute for Environment and Human Security and the International Organization for Migration.

“The changes are underway and they are very rapid,” Interior Secretary Sally Jewell warned last week in Ottawa. “We will have climate refugees.”

But the problem is complex, said Walter Kaelin, the head of the Nansen Initiative, a research organization working with the United Nations to address extreme-weather displacement.

“You don’t want to wait until people have lost their homes, until they flee and become refugees,” he said. “The idea is to plan ahead and provide people with some measure of choice.”

The Isle de Jean Charles resettlement plan is one of the first programs of its kind in the world, a test of how to respond to climate change in the most dramatic circumstances without tearing communities apart. Under the terms of the federal grant, the island’s residents are to be resettled to drier land and a community that as of now does not exist. All funds have to be spent by 2022.

“We see this as setting a precedent for the rest of the country, the rest of the world,” said Marion McFadden, who is running the program at the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

But even a plan like this — which would move only about 60 people — has been hard to pull off. Three previous resettlement efforts dating back to 2002 failed after they became mired in logistical and political complications. The current plan faces all the same challenges, illustrating the limitations of resettlement on any larger scale.

$48m to move 60 people. The next few decades are going to be very, very expensive for everyone.

Curiosity · **Posted:** Tue May 03, 2016 16:21

Apart from Climate Change doesn't exist, duh.

I mean, the Great Barrier Reef is doing just fine. It hasn't got the highest amount of coral bleaching ever because of increased temperatures. Not at all.

Malc · **Posted:** Mon May 16, 2016 7:29

Quote:

April 2016 was the hottest April on record globally – and the seventh month in a row to have broken global temperature records.

The latest figures smashed the previous record for April by the largest margin ever recorded.

It makes three months in a row that the monthly record has been broken by the largest margin ever, and seven months in a row that are at least 1C above the 1951-80 mean for that month. When the string of record-smashing months started in February, scientists began talking about a “climate emergency”.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... WEML6619I2

Anonymous X · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 2046

Attachment:

image.jpeg

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38460

Second places at Eurovision?

Mimi · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 25588

Says it all really.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

I can't for the life of me make sense out of that. YTD mean anomaly vs annual mean anomaly? What does it mean that 2015 is sitting at 1.1/1.1? Why is 2016 predication a green vertical line in the distance?

MaliA · **Posted:** Mon May 16, 2016 12:16

DavPaz wrote:

Second places at Eurovision?

myp · **Posted:** Mon May 16, 2016 12:19

Cras wrote:

I can't for the life of me make sense out of that. YTD mean anomaly vs annual mean anomaly? What does it mean that 2015 is sitting at 1.1/1.1? Why is 2016 predication a green vertical line in the distance?

The pattern is so unreadable, you might as well draw in a chain of fox heads on sticks.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Lonewolves wrote:

Cras wrote:

I can't for the life of me make sense out of that. YTD mean anomaly vs annual mean anomaly? What does it mean that 2015 is sitting at 1.1/1.1? Why is 2016 predication a green vertical line in the distance?

The pattern is so unreadable, you might as well draw in a chain of fox heads on sticks.

The pattern is incredibly obvious, I just can't tell what the pattern is meant to demonstrate.

myp · **Posted:** Mon May 16, 2016 12:26

Cras wrote:

Lonewolves wrote:

Cras wrote:

I can't for the life of me make sense out of that. YTD mean anomaly vs annual mean anomaly? What does it mean that 2015 is sitting at 1.1/1.1? Why is 2016 predication a green vertical line in the distance?

The pattern is so unreadable, you might as well draw in a chain of fox heads on sticks.

The pattern is incredibly obvious, I just can't tell what the pattern is meant to demonstrate.

Not a Brasseye fan then.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

It was the better part of 20 years ago. I can just about remember what I had for breakfast this morning.

Curiosity · **Posted:** Mon May 16, 2016 12:37

Lonewolves wrote:

Cras wrote:

I can't for the life of me make sense out of that. YTD mean anomaly vs annual mean anomaly? What does it mean that 2015 is sitting at 1.1/1.1? Why is 2016 predication a green vertical line in the distance?

The pattern is so unreadable, you might as well draw in a chain of fox heads on sticks.

And if you do that, the word 'cruelty' starts to flash.

myp · **Posted:** Mon May 16, 2016 12:39

Yesssssssssss

Grim... · **Posted:** Mon May 16, 2016 12:54

ApplePieOfDestiny · **Joined:** 17th Dec, 2008 **Posts:** 8293

Cras wrote:

Lonewolves wrote:

Cras wrote:

I can't for the life of me make sense out of that. YTD mean anomaly vs annual mean anomaly? What does it mean that 2015 is sitting at 1.1/1.1? Why is 2016 predication a green vertical line in the distance?

The pattern is so unreadable, you might as well draw in a chain of fox heads on sticks.

The pattern is incredibly obvious, I just can't tell what the pattern is meant to demonstrate.

Bro, do you even chart?

TheVision · **Posted:** Mon May 16, 2016 13:37

Cras wrote:

It was the better part of 20 years ago. I can just about remember what I had for breakfast this morning.

Don't you have the same thing for breakfast every day? I do...

ApplePieOfDestiny · **Joined:** 17th Dec, 2008 **Posts:** 8293

Shocking stuff in Paris. But another commitment to the cause as a result.

Quote:

French President Francois Hollande said the weather was a serious climate phenomenon

zaphod79 · **Joined:** 16th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 14489

http://xkcd.com/1732/

krazywookie · **Posted:** Tue Sep 13, 2016 0:01

zaphod79 wrote:

http://xkcd.com/1732/

Ooft. That's a very effective representation.

KovacsC · **Posted:** Tue Sep 13, 2016 6:51

That is great

Mimi · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 25588

KovacsC wrote:

That is great

I think you must be looking at it back-to-front. It's actually very, very bad.

KovacsC · **Posted:** Tue Sep 13, 2016 11:41

No as a piece of artwork, it is great.

Us boiling alive in 100 years not so much....

Mimi · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 25588

KovacsC wrote:

No as a piece of artwork, it is great.

Us boiling alive in 100 years not so much....

I know, Kovacs.

myp · **Posted:** Tue Sep 13, 2016 11:50

He's just playing it straight to carry on the joke

KovacsC · **Posted:** Tue Sep 13, 2016 11:52

Mimi · **Joined:** 27th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 25588

Lonewolves wrote:

He's just playing it straight to carry on the joke

Could you explain more, please?

myp · **Posted:** Tue Sep 13, 2016 12:02

Mimi wrote:

Lonewolves wrote:

He's just playing it straight to carry on the joke

Could you explain more, please?

That was a riff on the politics thread where I kept asking Kern why he couldn't stand to replace David Cameron.

myp · **Posted:** Tue Sep 13, 2016 13:44

Meanwhile it's 32.5°C in the UK. In mid-September.

We're fucked

Doctor Glyndwr · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 32619

https://twitter.com/misterbrilliant/sta ... 7033522176

Another embarrassing u-turn for climate "scientists". First they said March was the hottest month ever recorded. Now they say it's April.
— Steve Hogarty (@misterbrilliant) May 16, 2016

Quote:

Another embarrassing u-turn for climate "scientists". First they said March was the hottest month ever recorded. Now they say it's April.

Quote:

Another embarrassing u-turn for climate "scientists". First they said April was the hottest month ever recorded. Now they say it's May.

Quote:

Another embarrassing u-turn for climate "scientists". First they said May was the hottest month ever recorded. Now they're saying it's June.

Quote:

Another embarrassing u-turn for climate "scientists". First they said June was the hottest month ever recorded. Now they've said it's July.

Quote:

Another embarrassing u-turn for climate "scientists". First they said July was the hottest month ever recorded. Now they've said it's August

Quote:

Another embarrassing u-turn for climate "scientists". First they said 2015 was the hottest year ever recorded. Now they're saying it's 2016.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

myp · **Posted:** Mon Nov 14, 2016 13:15

Cras wrote:

:DD

I'm glad someone finds the destruction of our home funny.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

I...find someone pointing out the silliness of statements made by deniers funny.

myp · **Posted:** Mon Nov 14, 2016 13:25

Cras wrote:

I...find someone pointing out the silliness of statements made by deniers funny.

Bobbyaro · **Joined:** 18th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 11843

He's just playing it straight to carry on the joke

Cavey · **Posted:** Mon Nov 14, 2016 13:35

Well, rightly or wrongly, now that Trump's got in and Brexit's happening, no-one is going to give a fig about alleged man-made climate change; politically speaking, that is now dead as a dodo. From this point or thereabouts, it's going to be a free-for-all with wealth and jobs creation dials set to maximum and hang any consequences, all part of the political sea-change we are witnessing.

So I guess we're gonna find out if there's anything in it or not, by direct empirical observation...

Be Excellent To Each Other

Climate change

Who is online