And from London or Surrey, or somewhere thataways?
What you're thinking of there is Gordon Ramsay. I look nothing like him.
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
Someone at work said that with my dark hair, rants, new glasses and slight brummie twang when excited, that I reminded them of John Oliver yesterday.
I did a baby wee at this news, but then realised that they missed out 'funny'
I did a baby wee at this news, but then realised that they missed out 'funny'
Fuck you, Chris.
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
What you're thinking of there is Gordon Ramsay. I look nothing like him.
Hehe, no, he's Scottish, I think
Mimi wrote:
Huh? Isn't he blonde?
Nope.
I've no idea who you're thinking of this time.
Throughsilver better get himself back to the gym.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/0 ... ign=buffer
Quote:
if you are 29 years old [and in the US], you have never experienced a colder-than-average month in your life
Ugh... Why do they feel the need to jazz articles up with pithy comments like that, that are easily attacked and shown to be misleading.
Just show the graphs of data, that is plenty powerful enough!
Just show the graphs of data, that is plenty powerful enough!
Trooper wrote:
Just show the graphs of data, that is plenty powerful enough!
Evidently it isn't.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/06/23/3451944/warmest-may-on-record/?utm_content=buffer009d5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Quote:
if you are 29 years old [and in the US], you have never experienced a colder-than-average month in your life
Wasn't last winter the coldest and snowiest in decades for much of the northeast and midwest?
An environmental disaster in Canada doesn't make the news anywhere else, presumably because it doesn't involve oil.
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/tailings ... ard-of-714
http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/tailings ... ard-of-714
That's horrendous.
Just watched a very good documentary about nuclear energy, called Pandora's Promise. It should give anyone who is instinctively anti-nuclear but enjoys having their assumptions challenged some pause for thought.
Looks like we could be up for a cheeky El Ninõ!
'There is not a politician on earth wants to tell his or her constituents, "We've probably already blown our chance to avoid substantial suffering, but if we work really hard and devote our lives to the cause, we can somewhat reduce the even worse suffering that awaits our grandchildren."'
'Yet here we are. The fact is, on our current trajectory, in the absence of substantial new climate policy, we are heading for up to 4°C and maybe higher by the end of the century. That will be, on any clear reading of the available evidence, catastrophic. We are headed for disaster — slowly, yes, but surely.
'Even as many climate experts are now arguing that 2°C is an inadequate target, that it already represents unacceptable harms, we are facing a situation in which limiting temperature even to 3°C requires heroic policy and technology changes (or some very, very good news about climate sensitivity).'
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/15/8612113/tr ... ate-change
'Yet here we are. The fact is, on our current trajectory, in the absence of substantial new climate policy, we are heading for up to 4°C and maybe higher by the end of the century. That will be, on any clear reading of the available evidence, catastrophic. We are headed for disaster — slowly, yes, but surely.
'Even as many climate experts are now arguing that 2°C is an inadequate target, that it already represents unacceptable harms, we are facing a situation in which limiting temperature even to 3°C requires heroic policy and technology changes (or some very, very good news about climate sensitivity).'
http://www.vox.com/2015/5/15/8612113/tr ... ate-change
Oh good, we can all keep driving our cars forever, because today it looks like it's boars we need to worry about.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -pollution
Er... Goodness.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -pollution
Quote:
Confidential data from maritime industry insiders based on engine size and the quality of fuel typically used by ships and cars shows that just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars.
Er... Goodness.
Grim... wrote:
Oh good, we can all keep driving our cars forever, because today it looks like it's boars we need to worry about.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -pollution
Er... Goodness.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/ ... -pollution
Quote:
Confidential data from maritime industry insiders based on engine size and the quality of fuel typically used by ships and cars shows that just 15 of the world's biggest ships may now emit as much pollution as all the world's 760m cars.
Er... Goodness.
Damn boars. They're so tasty too.
\
"We destroy your planet, puny earthlings"
STUPID BOARS
Just in.. Court orders dutch state to reduce climate emissions..
No english source yet, but this is quite important
Background
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32300214
No english source yet, but this is quite important
Background
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32300214
I didn't even know they had boars in Holland.
This is fine.
I dunno. It was pretty chilly the other day, and Sarah Palin said its not real, and she has impeccable scientific credentials.
Half the time the temperature is below average!
Edit: Seriously, what's the standard deviation on it? Are we above that yet?
Edit: Seriously, what's the standard deviation on it? Are we above that yet?
/holds nose, enters yoghurt weaving thread
Wow. Three months of data, and we're all doooooomed. Never mind that the same graph shows feck all change between 2010-2015, five whole years, or that it's an El Niño year etc etc. Pesky inconvenient facts, huh.
The more I observe, the more I move from mere sceptic to outright denier. No doubt this will elicit the usual YOUR HAPPY TO SEE YOUR DAUGHTERS DROWN type comments from the usual suspects, yet I note that once again, key posts are simply ignored: Grim...'s piece about a tiny handful of fucking boats emitting more pollutants than all the worlds cars. Seriously people, if it really was such a real, let alone pressing issue of life or death, would these dozen or so boats not be refitted with elephant dung engines or whatever? Don't give me the it's too expensive line either, in the week we learned that ONE company Tata made almost a billion pounds quite legitimately for just ONE of their factories, by openly admitting to playing the system in so-called carbon trading. A billion quid for one factory.... and who is ultimately paying for this, and all the other no doubt countless billions and other factories in the EU, playing the same system? That's right, the consumer ultimately pays for this made up bullshit carbon credits. You and me.
This bandwagon is big, big money; the example I give is the tiniest tip of the iceberg. There are an awful lot of governments, corporations and select individuals getting very rich over all this, despite the graphs refusing to budge.
Three months' data in an El Niño..... L-lol. Says it all, more than anything I could ever say. Next.
Wow. Three months of data, and we're all doooooomed. Never mind that the same graph shows feck all change between 2010-2015, five whole years, or that it's an El Niño year etc etc. Pesky inconvenient facts, huh.
The more I observe, the more I move from mere sceptic to outright denier. No doubt this will elicit the usual YOUR HAPPY TO SEE YOUR DAUGHTERS DROWN type comments from the usual suspects, yet I note that once again, key posts are simply ignored: Grim...'s piece about a tiny handful of fucking boats emitting more pollutants than all the worlds cars. Seriously people, if it really was such a real, let alone pressing issue of life or death, would these dozen or so boats not be refitted with elephant dung engines or whatever? Don't give me the it's too expensive line either, in the week we learned that ONE company Tata made almost a billion pounds quite legitimately for just ONE of their factories, by openly admitting to playing the system in so-called carbon trading. A billion quid for one factory.... and who is ultimately paying for this, and all the other no doubt countless billions and other factories in the EU, playing the same system? That's right, the consumer ultimately pays for this made up bullshit carbon credits. You and me.
This bandwagon is big, big money; the example I give is the tiniest tip of the iceberg. There are an awful lot of governments, corporations and select individuals getting very rich over all this, despite the graphs refusing to budge.
Three months' data in an El Niño..... L-lol. Says it all, more than anything I could ever say. Next.
The article grim... Posted made no such reference to co2. It was talking about nox and sox.
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
The article grim... Posted made no such reference to co2. It was talking about nox and sox.
Sorry, my bad. But, it's still an amazing state of affairs, and my points re the folly of taking 3 months of data in a known abnormal weather pattern, and the clearly demonstrated ability of corporations to monetise 'climate change' to the tune of a billion quid per plant etc still stand.
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
The article grim... Posted made no such reference to co2. It was talking about nox and sox.
Cox
MaliA wrote:
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
The article grim... Posted made no such reference to co2. It was talking about nox and sox.
Cox
Yep, I agree.
Cavey wrote:
ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:
The article grim... Posted made no such reference to co2. It was talking about nox and sox.
Sorry, my bad. But, it's still an amazing state of affairs, and my points re the folly of taking 3 months of data in a known abnormal weather pattern, and the clearly demonstrated ability of corporations to monetise 'climate change' to the tune of a billion quid per plant etc still stand.
I can't be bothered to go over it all again, but you are cherry picking data far more than anyone else here. The temperature of the earth is rising. It has been rising on trend for a long time. This is indeed a mere peak within a trend, but the trend still very obviously exists. 2015 was higher than 2010, and 2016 is higher than 2015. In fact, 2016 is the hottest year on record, ever, so far. It may be noise and ultimately not statistically significant, but if you think that temperatures have not been rising then you are simply ignoring the actual, accepted data wilfully. This is getting to be on a level with flat earth theory.
You've previously pointed to a small plateau (to be expected within all trends) as conclusive evidence that warming doesn't exist. Now the temperature goes back up and you take that as conclusive evidence that warming doesn't exist. This can only be because you have arrived at your conclusion, one that goes entirely against the one tested and validated by thousands of the smartest minds on the planet, and then retrofitted theory around it. Conveniently, this conclusion means you don't have to change the way people in first world countries live their lives.
When around 96% of scientific consensus is against you, when basic data clearly shows you that you're wrong, when your closest scientific allies are Sarah Palin, Donald Trump and the oil lobby... maybe take another look at exactly what you're saying.
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
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
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? 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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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?
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.
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:
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/03/us/re ... 29071&_r=1
$48m to move 60 people. The next few decades are going to be very, very expensive for everyone.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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
Attachment:
image.jpeg
