Reply With Quote
RG,
That person was plotting monthly change in temperature. How else are you supposed to plot that?
Reading through one of the better "skeptic" blogs and found this gem:
Let's see what this looks like mathmatically, using standard Cartesian plotting:RECORD SURGE”
The headline of the Reuters article reads Record surge in 2016 temperatures adds urgency to climate deal, say scientists. The phrase “record surge” suggests a never-before-seen upward change in global surface temperatures. But there’s nothing unusual about the January to February 2016 change in monthly global surface temperatures represented by the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index. See Figure 5 [above-RG].
Before "subtracting"
X=1, y=1
X=2, y=2
X=3, y=3
X=4, y=4
After "subtracting"
X=1, y=1
X=2, y=1
X=3, y=1
X=4, y=1
If you take an upwards sloping line, and subtract the previous Y value, of course it is going to be flat.
“Look at this, once you take out the slope, nothing to see here!”
What amazes me is that this gentleman does this, and seems to think it rebuts what the scientists involved said about the current e being huge relative to the past. What I see is someone who doesn’t understand math/graphs.
I kinda get what he is saying, but this is just not really a very useful way of looking at the data, and ends up muddying things rather than actually being a valid rebuttal.
RG,
That person was plotting monthly change in temperature. How else are you supposed to plot that?
"A team of European researchers have unveiled a scientific model showing that the Earth is likely to experience a “mini ice age” from 2030 to 2040 as a result of decreased solar activity.
Their findings will infuriate environmental campaigners who argue by 2030 we could be facing increased sea levels and flooding due to glacial melt at the poles........."
http://www.express.co.uk/news/scienc...sun-hibernates
"The earth is cooling.....no it's warming"
http://m.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/F...mperature2.php
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v.../ngeo2681.htmlCarbon release rates from anthropogenic sources reached a record high of ~10 Pg C yr−1 in 2014. Geologic analogues from past transient climate changes could provide invaluable constraints on the response of the climate system to such perturbations, but only if the associated carbon release rates can be reliably reconstructed. The Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM) is known at present to have the highest carbon release rates of the past 66 million years, but robust estimates of the initial rate and onset duration are hindered by uncertainties in age models. Here we introduce a new method to extract rates of change from a sedimentary record based on the relative timing of climate and carbon cycle changes, without the need for an age model. We apply this method to stable carbon and oxygen isotope records from the New Jersey shelf using time-series analysis and carbon cycle–climate modelling. We calculate that the initial carbon release during the onset of the PETM occurred over at least 4,000 years. This constrains the maximum sustained PETM carbon release rate to less than 1.1 Pg C yr−1. We conclude that, given currently available records, the present anthropogenic carbon release rate is unprecedented during the past 66 million years. We suggest that such a ‘no-analogue’ state represents a fundamental challenge in constraining future climate projections. Also, future ecosystem disruptions are likely to exceed the relatively limited extinctions observed at the PETM.
iow, planet is ed and un able. US environmental policies paid for, owned by BigCarbon.
We are mucking about with a complex system that we don't fully understand.
Thinking that you can indefinitely do that without increasingly unpredictable or undesirable effects is ignoring some substantial risks. I prefer not to be that liberal with risk-taking.
Trying to correlate extinction to CO2 release rates?
Wow...
I wonder who funded that study...
Other than mentioning extinction, this article doesn't say anything we don't know already. In fact, the article is wrong an in that other studies have shown ocean pH is cyclical, and this is not the fastest drop in pH.
Possible known consequences of the rapid man-made carbon emissions have been extensively discussed elsewhere. Regarding impacts on ecosystems, the present/future rate of climate change and ocean acidification is too fast for many species to adapt, which is likely to result in widespread future extinctions in marine and terrestrial environments that will substantially exceed those at the PETM (ref. 13).
From other research showing rates and cyclical activity of ocean pH:
Unlike you WH, I have a subscription to Nature Geoscience, and can read the whole article. I don't know what blogger told you to post that, but it is pretty irrelevant in my view. It's a good journal if you have $59 annual to invest. If you seriously are interested in the truth of the climate sciences, you should put your money where your mouth is.
There are also papers saying our emission rates are now flat. the 10 Pg rate is not expected to increase, but lower.
If you say so.
You really should read more than just the abstract...
Besides, it was funded with a federal grant and EU grant. Such things often are agenda related, as politics hold the pursestrings.
NSF grant OCE12-20602
ERC-2013-CoG-617313
politics hold the pursestrings for a lot of R&D. we might not be chatting online but for political spending on science.
lot of other good too.
what do you have against public spending for the public good, WC?
government ought not to study and invest, but leave it all to to the profit motive?
how can we trust the worst of men, with the worst of motives, to perform the public good behind their very own backs?
isn't that why the founders established a form of government where they in principle have to fight for privilege against contending interests instead of coasting on the advantages of inheritance?
Plenty.
What spending is good and bad is matter of opinion. Now if skeptics could get the same level of grants that alarmists do, it would be fair. However, only those proposing ideas that support the bureaucracies ideals get funding.
like the DOD and the NSA?
what does government exist for, in your opinion?
is it good that our ancestors gave us a form of government or not?
why or why not?
what is it ing for, WC?
Did the founders fight to allow government to pick winners and losers?
Read the Preamble to the Cons ution.
does it have legitimate functions apart from protecting us from hostile, swarthy foreigners and unruly citizens?
Know it by heart. It isn't legally binding.
The Preamble, though normatively persuasive, isn't a point of law.
They absolutely did. They forbid the abolition of slavery until 1808, or something like that.
the government picks who gets the public goodies. that's been a constant.
it isn't a novelty.
it's in the nature of power to distribute goodies.
One of Julius Caesar's methods was to lay a heavy bribe in gold to duly enrolled citizens and even a few wannabees before the election.
Only the manner has changed. Our politicians promise to pay us afterwards.
you still haven't said what you think government is for, WC.
waving your hands at the Preamble to the US Cons ution doesn't quite put your own point across.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
