Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[drron]

So Storch who is a climate scientist says there has been a pause in warming and you know he is wrong.He is also not the only one.
Says it all.

PS-You can take it as read that I believe very little that you say no matter what interpretation you put on my words.

 

[drsmithy]

So Storch who is a climate scientist says there has been a pause in warming and you know he is wrong.He is also not the only one.
Says it all.

I think you need to read the article a bit more closely.

 

[HarryB]

I'd like Messi to captain Sunderland but unfortunately it's not a choice I can make.

He wouldn't stoop that low ... He has pride!

 

[Skyring]

Huh ? Who uses the year 2000 ? Why would they ? The trend of global temperature for over a century has been steadily upwards.

A "slowing of warming" is still warming.

Maybe this will help.

I wouldn't say "steadily" upwards. I'd say that the rise has flattened out over the past decade or so. I'd say it's obvious enough now that it's interesting to wonder what denialist thought processes are at work in those who claim it's not there. Let's just take a closer look at the past twenty years:

(Original here, with sources)

Now, I'll agree that if one cherry-picks things like data source, start and end points, scale and axis, one may present any topic in a distorted fashion. But it seems to me that if one looks at data from reliable sources since the start of the Industrial Revolution (which coincided with the ending of the Little Ice Age), one may observe a steady increase in atmospheric CO2 produced by burning of fossil fuels and surprise, surprise, a corresponding increase in global temperatures. Apart from the past decade or so when the steady temperature rise noticeably flattens out.

One may deny it all one wants, say it's statistical trickery or whatever, but there it is, instantly apparent to the eye.

Speaking of Ice Ages, there's a lot of good science pointing to long-term fluctuations in global temperature and matching fluctuations in atmospheric CO2. Wikipedia has some good graphs on this, where the link is readily apparent. Clearly, the planet fluctuates in temperature and has done so for a very long time. There seems to be a link between CO2, temperature and dust, going by information from clean sources such as Antarctic ice cores.

 

[drsmithy]

I wouldn't say "steadily" upwards. I'd say that the rise has flattened out over the paste decade or so. I'd say it's obvious enough now that it's interesting to wonder what denialist thought processes are at work in those who claim it's not there.

Who claims it's not there ?
The "claim" is that the outcome of a couple of hundred years of upward trend is not reversed by a decade of "stagnation".
Especially when the "missing" change that creates the "stagnation" can be found elsewhere (ie: deep sea temperature changes).

Speaking of Ice Ages, there's a lot of good science pointing to long-term fluctuations in global temperature and matching fluctuations in atmospheric CO2. Wikipedia has some good graphs on this, where the link is readily apparent. Clearly, the planet fluctuates in temperature and has done for a long time. There seems to be a link between CO2, temperature and dust.

No-one disagrees the planet has natural temperature fluctuations.

 

[Skyring]

I think you need to read the article a bit more closely.

Righto. Here's what the article says:

On 20 June 2013 Storch stated "So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_von_Storch

Von Storch says global warming is taking a break. He said it last month. There's nothing more recent in the article to contradict this. Reading it more closely is hardly likely to generate any other message. It's like looking for a dump truck in the back seat of your Porsche. It's not there.

 

[drron]

I think you need to read the article a bit more closely.

I have read it several times and am in agreement with it.I am not a denier.The climate is changing and it has been getting warmer.
However how much is man made and how much is natural variation.And finally someone has said the science is not proven.Yes CO2 causes warming but the models used for predictions are not proven science.Storch in the article says that the chance of this pause being predicted under any of the models is 2%.
The time frame does vary but there have been several statements that if this pause lasts 15-20 years the models being used are not correct.Storch refers to this in the article quoted.
Using the graph you posted is putting you in a slowly declining group of "alarmists".

 

[Pukka]

He wouldn't stoop that low ... He has pride!

Says the man whose team is sponsored by Wonga the payday loan firm that charge 5853% interest per year!!!!!

0-3 no more discussion needed

 

[drsmithy]

Righto. Here's what the article says:Von Storch says global warming is taking a break. He said it last month. There's nothing more recent in the article to contradict this. Reading it more closely is hardly likely to generate any other message. It's like looking for a dump truck in the back seat of your Porsche. It's not there.

Somehow I don't think the guy saying "We still have compelling evidence of a man-made greenhouse effect. There is very little doubt about it.", "Among other things, there is evidence that the oceans have absorbed more heat than we initially calculated. Temperatures at depths greater than 700 meters (2,300 feet) appear to have increased more than ever before.", and "Yes, we are certainly going to see an increase of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) or more -- and by the end of this century, mind you.", is arguing global warming is "taking a break".

In this article, von Storch does not appearing to be delivering a message meaningfully different to the one the vast majority of climate chance scientists have been for decades, and continue to.
He certainly doesn't support your assertion of "there's no warming going on".

 

[drsmithy]

And finally someone has said the science is not proven.Yes CO2 causes warming but the models used for predictions are not proven science.

No science is every "proven". That's not how science works.

Using the graph you posted is putting you in a slowly declining group of "alarmists".

Yes, well, it'll be a long decline from "nearly everyone in the field of climate science".

 

[Skyring]

He certainly doesn't support your assertion of "there's no warming going on".

So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break.

Seems to be taking a break, he says. And you seem to be denying it. It's kind of funny and kind of sad to see you twist yourself in knots like this. I'd say that you, like those good folk at the Creation Dinosaur Park, have something that overrides the science, and if the facts don't suit that something, then the facts have got to be wrong.

Because you couldn't be.

Cheers.

 

[amaroo]

Says the man whose team is sponsored by Wonga the payday loan firm that charge 5853% interest per year!!!!! 

I've no idea about the man, club or game......however, the above example seems to sum it all up beautifully!

 

[Skyring]

No science is every "proven". That's not how science works.

I think we can say that the "round Earth" theory has been proven over the "flat Earth" theory.

At a certain point we get into fringe views and precious arguments and arguing over teeeny weeny iddle details, because there is something so precious, like a flat Earth theory, that adherents do not wish to rule out completely.

Most people, something obvious smacks 'em in the face, they say, fair enough, I must have been wrong, I've been wrong before, no big deal.

Others, they deny the obvious, they go hunting for weird coincidences and conspiracies and the angle of the shadows on the lunar surface prove that Armstrong and Aldrin were never there, or that Lee Harvey Oswald never fired that fatal shot.

Its sad and it's funny to see such people deny what is readily apparent to the bulk of humanity.

"Doublethink", it's called, and we've had this conversation before.

A good sign of how things are going is when the facts are pushed aside in favour of personal abuse. That's a tell.

 

[drsmithy]

Seems to be taking a break, he says.

But you said:

There's no warming going on [...]

And you seem to be denying it. It's kind of funny and kind of sad to see you twist yourself in knots like this. I'd say that you, like those good folk at the Creation Dinosaur Park, have something that overrides the science, and if the facts don't suit that something, then the facts have got to be wrong.

The facts I've talked about are that global temperatures have been on an upward trend since the industrial revolution.

You can cherry-pick the last decade if you want, but it doesn't change the overall trend.

Extrapolating from "our models need to be improved" to "there's no global warming", is comically disingenuous (yet disturbingly commonplace).

 

[drsmithy]

I think we can say that the "round Earth" theory has been proven over the "flat Earth" theory.

I never knew there was a "flat earth" theory. Could you provide a cite ?

Or are you engaging in loose colloquial use of language that carries quite specific meaning in context, again ?

Others, they deny the obvious, they go hunting for weird coincidences and conspiracies and the angle of the shadows on the lunar surface prove that Armstrong and Aldrin were never there, or that Lee Harvey Oswald never fired that fatal shot.

Indeed. The denialist world is full of them.

Its sad and it's funny to see such people deny what is readily apparent to the bulk of humanity.

Ah. You mean like claiming there's no global warming even in the face of two centuries of it ?

Gotcha.

 

[HarryB]

Looks like Clive Palmer will now only be able to get 99 seats at the election

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-...-candidate-quits-after-a-month/4845036?pfm=ms

 

[HarryB]

Says the man whose team is sponsored by Wonga the payday loan firm that charge 5853% interest per year!!!!!

0-3 no more discussion needed

Yes, the toon do provide plenty of ammo, don't they (Joe Kinnear comes directly to mind). I have no comeback for that so will stick to politics in this thread.

 

[Skyring]

Ah. You mean like claiming there's no global warming even in the face of two centuries of it ?

LOL! Wrong!

I've said that there's a correlation between CO2 and global temperature. It's quite plain to see that both have gone up since the Industrial Revolution. I am certainly not denying the obvious, like you seem to think I am!

The facts are plain.

As is the fact that over the past decade, there's been no warming going on. We can play with the numbers a little to show a little warming, a little cooling, but the trendline has definitely slowed if not stopped or reversed.

You do see that?

 

[11sjw]

All of a sudden the "Economic Conservative" has himself a big hole to deal with (Labor reels from $20bn budget hole) .

 

[drsmithy]

I've said that there's a correlation between CO2 and global temperature. It's quite plain to see that both have gone up since the Industrial Revolution. I am certainly not denying the obvious, like you seem to think I am!

The global temperature trend for the last couple of hundred (or even couple of dozen) years is pretty obvious, and it's not flat, or down.

As is the fact that over the past decade, there's been no warming going on. We can play with the numbers a little to show a little warming, a little cooling, but the trendline has definitely slowed if not stopped or reversed.

You do see that?

The trendline has only "slowed if not stopped or reversed" if you _start_ drawing it at 1998. As is plain to see on the graph you provided.

For someone so concerned about "doublethink", you seem to be pretty good at it. Agreeing on one hand that temperatures have been rising, yet turning around a second later and saying they are flat or falling, depending on what argument you want to try and make at that particular point in the conversation.

Do you have some reason for why, when evaluating climate change, we should only consider the last 15 or so years to be relevant ?