I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.

[Barney B]

I'd like to see that trend starting in about 1880. No agenda, just curious of observed pattern.

 

[mcsluggo]

what was going on in the 40 years from 1940 to 1980?

[No Excuses]

what was going on in the 40 years from 1940 to 1980?

 

Greater sulphate aerosol emissions post WW2 from increased industrial practices and less regulatory restrictions on emissions. There were also large volcanic eruptions that released significant quantities of aerosols into the atmosphere. 

 

Post 1970, several countries passed legislation to curb emissions of sulphate aerosols and other atmospheric pollutants.

 

Atmospheric sulphate aerosols basically reflect incoming solar energy back into space, leading to cooling on Earth. And we know aerosols were responsible for this cooling because day time maximum temperatures continued to drop, but nighttime minimums (when incoming solar energy is absent) rose through 1940-75.

Edited February 24, 2015 by No Excuses

[twa]

hopefully we won't freeze

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg/800px-Vostok_Petit_data.svg.png

 

"Vostok Petit data" by Vostok-ice-core-petit.png: NOAA derivative work: Autopilot (talk) - Vostok-ice-core-petit.png. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg#mediaviewer/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

Edited February 24, 2015 by twa

[No Excuses]

Stupid troll act continues to remain stupid. 

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2004GC000891/full

 

Assuming for the moment that natural CO₂ forcing in the future will be small, the model predicts that the available fossil fuel carbon reserves have the capacity to impact the evolution of climate hundreds of thousands of years into the future. An anthropogenic release of 300 Gton C (as we have already done) has a relatively small impact on future climate evolution, postponing the next glacial termination 140 kyr from now by one precession cycle. Release of 1000 Gton C (blue lines, Figure 3c) is enough to decisively prevent glaciation in the next few thousand years, and given the long atmospheric lifetime of CO₂, to prevent glaciation until 130 kyr from now. If the anthropogenic carbon release is 5000 Gton or more (red lines), the critical trigger insolation value exceeds 2 σ of the long-term mean for the next 100 kyr. This is a time of low insolation variability because of the Earth's nearly circular orbit. The anthrogenic CO₂ forcing begins to decay toward natural conditions just as eccentricity (and hence insolation variability) reaches its next minimum 400 kyr from now. The model predicts the end of the glacial cycles, with stability of the interglacial for at least the next half million years (Figure 3c).

 

 

 The combination of relatively weak orbital forcing and the long atmospheric lifetime of anthropogenic carbon could generate a longer interglacial period than has been seen in the last 2.6 million years. This will have consequences for the major ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland [Huybrechts and De Wolde, 1999], and for the methane clathrate reservoir in the ocean [Archer and Buffett, 2005].

 

Edited February 24, 2015 by No Excuses

[PeterMP]

what was going on in the 40 years from 1940 to 1980?

 

It isn't quite clear, but the most popular idea is that particles released from things like coal power plants were actually over whelming the green house gas signal.  Many of the things that were released actually reflect heat/sun light back into space and therefore actually cause cooling.

 

Us and Europe cleaning up our air actually than would be a contributing factor.

 

Then today warming is really disguised with respect what it could/should be because of what China is doing.

 

There are other ideas.  Another one is that there is cycle involving things related to El Nino (El Nino's generally cause increased surface temperatures) That the climate should cycle between 30 years of (surface) warming and (surface) cooling, but the 30 years of (surface) cooling turn into a flat line due to the green house gas signal.

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/07/warminginterrupted-much-ado-about-natural-variability/

 

The people at the link suggested (back in 2009) that the El Nino in 1998 was an indication of a switch to the next cycle (a "cooling" phase) and that (surface) warming would go on a hiatus for the next 30 years or so, but that doesn't really seem to be happening.

 

I'm not sure what the answer is, but I don't think the answer is that Earth wasn't warming (i.e. ideas like the first one aren't the sole explanation) because the sea level appears to have increased pretty steadily through that time.

 

 

There'a been a lot recently showing the changing wind patterns can cause more heat to be trapped deeper in the ocean, which then would contribute to sea level rises (water is most dense around 4 degree C and as it heats up it takes up more volume and sea levels rise).  So I think the data supports (at least some) continued warming just not in places where we were measuring (i.e. not the surface)

 

(Realistically, I think there are things that many people (e.g. climate models) are missing that are going to make the situation much more complex than expected when you start talking about changes in (deep) ocean currents, and more complex doesn't mean better for us (in the long term))

 

The problem is that we don't have a ton data from that time period (e.g. no satellite data really at all to speak of) to say anything definitive.

hopefully we won't freeze

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg/800px-Vostok_Petit_data.svg.png

 

"Vostok Petit data" by Vostok-ice-core-petit.png: NOAA derivative work: Autopilot (talk) - Vostok-ice-core-petit.png. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg#mediaviewer/File:Vostok_Petit_data.svg

 

Ice ages (really glacial periods because we are actually in an ice age) are caused by changes in our orbital patterns.

 

These are related to things called Milankovitch cycles.

 

The next on isn't expected for tens of thousands of years so I think we're pretty good.

Edited February 24, 2015 by PeterMP

[Skins24]

what was going on in the 40 years from 1940 to 1980?

What are you talking about? The global cooling scare was/is real. The real question is what was going on between 1990 and 2010?

[twa]

 

I am Under “Investigation”

 

https://theclimatefix.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/i-am-under-investigation/

When “witch hunts” are deemed legitimate in the context of popular causes, we will have fully turned science into just another arena for the exercise of power politics. The result is a big loss for both science and politics.

[PF Chang]

Breaking news. Jim Inhofe has done it. He's disproved climate change: 

 

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/234026-sen-inhofe-throws-snowball-to-disprove-climate-change

 

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) threw a snowball on the Senate floor Thursday in an effort to disprove what he sees as alarmist conclusions about man-made climate change.

Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, said the snowball was from outside in Washington, which he used to argue against claims that the earth’s temperature is rising due to greenhouse gas emissions.

“In case we have forgotten, because we keep hearing that 2014 has been the warmest year on record, I ask the chair, do you know what this is,” Inhofe said to Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), who was presiding over the Senate’s debate, as he removed the snowball from a plastic bag.

 

“It’s a snowball. And it’s just from outside here. So it’s very, very cold out. Very unseasonable.”

 

(the bold part makes me extremely uncomfortable)

[Burgold]

Breaking news. Jim Inhofe has done it. He's disproved climate change: 

 

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/234026-sen-inhofe-throws-snowball-to-disprove-climate-change

 

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.)

 

“It’s a snowball. And it’s just from outside here. So it’s very, very cold out. Very unseasonable.”

 

(the bold part makes me extremely uncomfortable)

We need to send this man back to school.

 

Yes, it's a funny demonstration, but shamefully ignorant.

[tshile]

There's probably no better way to show ignorance on what scientists have been reporting on the topic over the last decade than to make some sort of "It's cold outside, therefore global warming must not be true" statement.

[twa]

There's probably no better way to show ignorance on what scientists have been reporting on the topic over the last decade than to make some sort of "It's cold outside, therefore global warming must not be true" statement.

 

Or the increased blather when it is hot, drought, hurricanes or my favorite ......rising sea levels.

[tshile]

Or the increased blather when it is hot, drought, hurricanes or my favorite ......rising sea levels.

 

Yes, either side foaming at the mouth about how the current day's temperature/weather patterns supports either argument is ignorant.

 

But at least the ones you're talking about have their ignorance in a better place. They may not understand the issue as well as they think they do, but at least the foundation of their opinion isn't "LOL SCIENTISTS ARE SO STUPID"

Edited February 27, 2015 by tshile

[Mad Mike]

Someone suggested that this thread has gone away from the original idea. I disagree. I see this thread as a data storehouse of relevant information.

 

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/22/3625629/willie-soon-fossil-fuel-money/

 

 

One of the world’s most prominent climate researchers publishing scientific papers that doubt humanity’s role in climate change has received at least $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry to fund his research and salary, according to documents revealed this weekend.

Wei-Hock Soon (known mainly as “Willie”) is aerospace engineer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and has written papers on how the sun’s role in the Earth’s climate outshines the warming impact of humans burning fossil fuels. His papers have cast doubt on how hot the last century really was, whether polar bears are negatively impacted by a warming Arctic, and concluded the sun plays a larger role in climate change than greenhouse gas emissions. He has said that mainstream climate scientists and those concerned by the causes and impacts of human-caused climate change are “out of their minds.”

Soon received hundreds of thousands of dollars each from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, coal utility Southern Company, the Charles G. Koch Foundation, and other conservative groups, according to documents obtained by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center, and spotlighted by the New York Times on Saturday. Over the last decade, Soon failed to disclose this funding in at least 11 of his scientific papers, likely violating ethical guidelines in eight of those cases.

[twa]

Yes, either side foaming at the mouth about how the current day's temperature/weather patterns supports either argument is ignorant.

 

But at least the ones you're talking about have their ignorance in a better place. They may not understand the issue as well as they think they do, but at least the foundation of their opinion isn't "LOL SCIENTISTS ARE SO STUPID"

 

Myopic instead of stupid is not a improvement.

[No Excuses]

Stupid senator from Oklahoma gets the response he deserves. 

 

Feel free to believe in morons (and become one along with them) or trust every major American scientific organization.

Edited February 27, 2015 by No Excuses

[Mad Mike]

Senator Whitehouse Rips 'The Senator With The Snowball' | Crooks and Liars

 

 

A portion of the transcript:

 

 

And this is produced by NASA. These are pretty serious people. So you can believe NASA and you can believe what their satellites measure on the planet, or you can believe the Senator With The Snowball.

The United States Navy takes this very seriously, to the point where Admiral Locklear, who is the head of the Pacific Command, has said that climate change is the biggest threat that we face in the Pacific. He's a career miilitary officer and he's deadly serious.

You can either believe the United States Navy, or you can believe the Senator With The Snowball.

[Mad Mike]

And BTW, Guess who the biggest contributors to Inhofe are....

 

Sen. James M. Inhofe: Campaign Finance/Money - Summary - Senator 2014 | OpenSecrets

 

And because it is related...

 

The Inside Story Of How Citizens United Has Changed Washington Lawmaking

Edited February 27, 2015 by Mad Mike

[mcsluggo]

Myopic instead of stupid is not a improvement.

 

in one case you are talking about looking at a single data point of a flow variable: 

(damn..it sure is cold today, where is that global warming?  haha)

 

AND.. it ALSO ignores the fact that global warming leads to localized changes in all sorts of directions  (it could get warmer OR colder in any one spot, and still be consistent with global warming)

 

 

Or the increased blather when it is hot, drought, hurricanes or my favorite ......rising sea levels.

 

 

making a statement about an idividual hot day, is pretty much the same.

 

drought or hurricane conditions?  not quite as egregious (it is at least multiple data points, but still of a limited scale, and individually don't capture any big picture)

 

rising sea levels,,, really?   are you sure??

 

that certainly SOUNDS like a stock variable.. and one that captures the impact of a whole bunch of individual flow variable datapoints.  it doesn't sound ANYTHING like the other types of observations that were discussed.  

 

lumping it in wiht the others (particularly the way that you did) screams ...something?  ... trolling?  or ...??

Edited February 27, 2015 by mcsluggo

[Mad Mike]

Scientists Observe Temperatures Warming In Response To Increased Carbon Dioxide | Popular Science

 

 

Researchers from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory published a paperin Nature this week, examining 10 years of data taken between 2000 and 2010 at two locations, one on Alaska's North Slope (seen above) and one in Oklahoma. Instruments at each facility looked at both concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but also at the effect of 'radiative forcing,' which happens when more radiation from the sun is absorbed than is reflected into space.

 

“Numerous studies show rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but our study provides the critical link between those concentrations and the addition of energy to the system, or the greenhouse effect,” one of the authors of the paper, Daniel Feldman, said in a press release.

[Mad Mike]

RealClimate: The Soon fallacy

 

 

As many will have read, there were a number of press reports (NYT, Guardian, InsideClimate) about the non-disclosure of Willie Soon’s corporate funding (from Southern Company (an energy utility), Koch Industries, etc.) when publishing results in journals that require such disclosures. There are certainly some interesting questions to be asked (by the OIG!) about adherence to the Smithsonian’s ethics policies, and the propriety of Smithsonian managers accepting soft money with non-disclosure clauses attached.

However, a valid question is whether the science that arose from these funds is any good? It’s certainly conceivable that Soon’s work was too radical for standard federal research programs and that these energy companies were really taking a chance on blue-sky high risk research that might have the potential to shake things up. In such a case, someone might be tempted to overlook the ethical lapses and conflicts of interest for the sake of scientific advancement (though far too many similar post-hoc justifications have been used to excuse horrific unethical practices for this to be remotely defendable).

- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/the-soon-fallacy/#sthash.9JNqkzSA.dpuf

[tshile]

Myopic instead of stupid is not a improvement.

 

I'm not saying it's anything to cheer about. It's just not as bad.

 

If anything it's indication of how terrible the other side is...

Edited February 27, 2015 by tshile

[twa]

 

 

 

 

rising sea levels,,, really?   are you sure??

 

yes

global warming also causes seas to lower. (or land to rise  )

 

some win,some lose,change is coming.

 

funny how only certain things seem trolling to some of ya'll 

[Burgold]

Stupid senator from Oklahoma gets the response he deserves. 

 

Feel free to believe in morons (and become one along with them) or trust every major American scientific organization.

 

Well done. That was like a Senator with a snowball showing up to a gun fight.

[PeterMP]

yes

global warming also causes seas to lower. (or land to rise  )

 

some win,some lose,change is coming.

 

funny how only certain things seem trolling to some of ya'll 

 

Sea level only lowers with increased temperature if the land had ice on it that has melted, which is a pretty small amount of land on the globe.

 

Yes sea levels might lower in Arctic and Antarctic, and there might be even be some locals that for whatever reason not due to sea ice actually see increase sea levels (e.g. increases in sedimentation dumping can result in increased sea levels though the people in those areas generally don't want increased sedimentation so they get increased sea levels, but they don't really want it).

 

But globally sea levels are going up, and that's especially true where lot's of people live (i.e. areas where there isn't ice on the land).

 

And that's supported today by tide gauges around the world and satellite data.  In total, sea levels are going up and that's not really up for debate.

 

Though, I generally agree with the idea that some will winners and losers, which is why I really don't understand the issue with most Americans when we have a really great climate.

 

I mean if you live the Sahara desert, climate can't much worse so I can see be willing to take that coin flip, but for the US, it makes no sense.

Edited February 27, 2015 by PeterMP