That's a damn good question- What the hell is a multi-trillion dollar company like NASA doing setting up shop in hurricane alley, at what, 50 feet above sea level??
Holy crap I hope they have Obamasurance
Human-induced climate change requires urgent action
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
That's a damn good question- What the hell is a multi-trillion dollar company like NASA doing setting up shop in hurricane alley, at what, 50 feet above sea level??
Holy crap I hope they have Obamasurance
Just watched episode 12 of the new Cosmos. Perhaps the real rising oceans disaster is around the arctic.
Yes I have. What is your point? Nuclear is far safer than fossil fuels. Not even close.
I thought reproduction was vital to your female rights and all that.
Let's outline why the report below is completely meaningless and absurd. Here is the reality, China's energy demand will consume 80% more than the US by 2035. And with 50 new coal plants in the pipeline, the chances of reducing their carbon footprint are nil. The best they can hope for is to shift the smog away from their cities. Any Chinese "plan" to "reduce carbon emissions" is merely optics, and a trap to lure western investors into a completely fraudulent "trading" market that is not viable.
http://www.worldreview.info/content/china-powers-ahead-energy-revolution
http://www.worldreview.info/content/china-powers-ahead-energy-revolution
Compared to the long term warming trend, hiatus periods of fifteen years are common in the surface temperature record. The term is currently used to refer to the period since the exceptionally warm year of 1998. While evidence of continued multi-decadal warming is robust, there is considerable variability on annual to decadal scales, so shorter periods of ten or fifteen years can show weaker or stronger trends.[1] Although the rate of increase in surface temperatures slowed during this period, increasing heat had been trapped in the oceans, at lower depths than previously.[5]
Global mean land-ocean temperature index from January 1880 through January 2014. The colored line is the annual mean and the black line is the five-year running mean. Hiatus periods of fifteen years have occurred several times in this temperature record, but over a longer timescale there has been a robust rising trend.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-AR5_Tech_summary-1
To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. Theatmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content.
This analysis is performed in An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (Murphy 2009) which adds up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice. To calculate the Earth's total heat content, the authors used data of ocean heat content from the upper 700 metres. They included heat content from deeper waters down to 3000 metres depth. They computed atmospheric heat content using the surface temperaturerecord and the heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (the energy required to melt ice) were also included.
Global mean land-ocean temperature index from January 1880 through January 2014. The colored line is the annual mean and the black line is the five-year running mean. Hiatus periods of fifteen years have occurred several times in this temperature record, but over a longer timescale there has been a robust rising trend.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_hiatus#cite_note-AR5_Tech_summary-1
To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance. Theatmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content.
This analysis is performed in An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950 (Murphy 2009) which adds up heat content from the ocean, atmosphere, land and ice. To calculate the Earth's total heat content, the authors used data of ocean heat content from the upper 700 metres. They included heat content from deeper waters down to 3000 metres depth. They computed atmospheric heat content using the surface temperaturerecord and the heat capacity of the troposphere. Land and ice heat content (the energy required to melt ice) were also included.
Cherry Picking
Most claims that the IPCC models have failed are based on surface temperature changes over the past 15 years (1998–2012). During that period, temperatures have risen about 50 percent more slowly than the multi-model average, but have remained within the range of individual model simulation runs.
However, 1998 represented an abnormally hot year at the Earth's surface due to one of the strongest El Niño events of the 20th century. Thus it represents a poor choice of a starting date to analyze the surface warming trend (selectively choosing convenient start and/or end points is also known as 'cherry picking '). For example, we can select a different 15-year period, 1992–2006, and find a surface warming trend nearly 50 percentfaster than the multi-model average, as statistician Tamino helpfully illustrates in the figure below.
Global surface temperature data 1975–2012 from NASA with a linear trend (black), with trends for 1992–2006 (red) and 1998–2012 (blue).
http://www.theguardian.com/env...projections-accurate
Most claims that the IPCC models have failed are based on surface temperature changes over the past 15 years (1998–2012). During that period, temperatures have risen about 50 percent more slowly than the multi-model average, but have remained within the range of individual model simulation runs.
However, 1998 represented an abnormally hot year at the Earth's surface due to one of the strongest El Niño events of the 20th century. Thus it represents a poor choice of a starting date to analyze the surface warming trend (selectively choosing convenient start and/or end points is also known as 'cherry picking '). For example, we can select a different 15-year period, 1992–2006, and find a surface warming trend nearly 50 percentfaster than the multi-model average, as statistician Tamino helpfully illustrates in the figure below.
http://www.theguardian.com/env...projections-accurate
here is the reality.... the models failed at the 15 year mark and now we are at 17 years and 11 months.
way beyond the 95% level and past the 97.5% level.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/05/matt-ridley-in-the-wsj-whatever-happened-to-global-warming/
When the climate scientist and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an article in 2006 saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures, there was an outcry. A year later, when David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point, the environmentalist and journalist Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was “wrong, completely wrong,” and was “deliberately, or otherwise, misleading the public.”
We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was wrong. Two years before Mr. Whitehouse’s article, climate scientists were already admitting in emails among themselves that there had been no warming since the late 1990s. “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998,” wrote Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2005. He went on: “Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. A report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.”
Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That’s according to a new statisticalcalculation by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.
way beyond the 95% level and past the 97.5% level.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/05/matt-ridley-in-the-wsj-whatever-happened-to-global-warming/
When the climate scientist and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia wrote an article in 2006 saying that there had been no global warming since 1998 according to the most widely used measure of average global air temperatures, there was an outcry. A year later, when David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation in London made the same point, the environmentalist and journalist Mark Lynas said in the New Statesman that Mr. Whitehouse was “wrong, completely wrong,” and was “deliberately, or otherwise, misleading the public.”
We know now that it was Mr. Lynas who was wrong. Two years before Mr. Whitehouse’s article, climate scientists were already admitting in emails among themselves that there had been no warming since the late 1990s. “The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998,” wrote Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain in 2005. He went on: “Okay it has but it is only seven years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.”
If the pause lasted 15 years, they conceded, then it would be so significant that it would invalidate the climate-change models upon which policy was being built. A report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) written in 2008 made this clear: “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more.”
Well, the pause has now lasted for 16, 19 or 26 years—depending on whether you choose the surface temperature record or one of two satellite records of the lower atmosphere. That’s according to a new statisticalcalculation by Ross McKitrick, a professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada.