New NOAA Research Puts Global Warming 'Hiatus' in Doubt

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The ocean is used as a carbon sink at present. We can see this through the decreased pH of the seawater. When the Oceans become saturated with carbon, we may expect a spike in carbon.

The other worry is methane released by melting cAps. Methane is a much more potent GHG than CO2.

[Boston Bread]

If someone actually did debunk climate change, they should be getting tons of awards.

[RFayette]

If someone actually did debunk climate change, they should be getting tons of awards.

No one's talking about debunking "climate change," whatever that means.

The central thesis of "skeptics" is that in the present situation, we shouldn't enact draconian climate policies curbing CO2 emissions.  It's not about "debunking" the idea that CO2 can have a greenhouse effect or that temperatures have gone up, but rather about why we shouldn't bankrupt coal, curbe fossil fuels, and prevent developing countries from enjoying the lifestyle we do because of a central planners' alarmist fear about global warming. 

[Boston Bread]

By "debunking climate change" I'm referring to those like Snowguy who don't accept current scientists' findings on climate change. What they have are the best model we have now of how the climate will respond to emissions and if someone discovered that a model that does not predict significant warming is superior by all means they should be recognized by the scientific community.

Skeptics aren't unified though. You can find some who deny any warming caused by human emissions.

When did I talk about central planning? Who are these central planners?

[Oak Hills]

If someone actually did debunk climate change, they should be getting tons of awards.

No one's talking about debunking "climate change," whatever that means.

The central thesis of "skeptics" is that in the present situation, we shouldn't enact draconian climate policies curbing CO2 emissions.  It's not about "debunking" the idea that CO2 can have a greenhouse effect or that temperatures have gone up, but rather about why we shouldn't bankrupt coal, curbe fossil fuels, and prevent developing countries from enjoying the lifestyle we do because of a central planners' alarmist fear about global warming. 

These first two need to happen anyway, regardless of the extent of global warming.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The developing world's reliance on dirty coal is killing it. Largely the problems in such countries rely on electricty distribution rather than generation (which is why whopping great plants, whether nuclear, hydroelectric or fossil fuels tend to end up as white elephants). The great thing about renewable techniques is they are perfect for small scale generation. Solar panels are spreading far more quickly for rural electrification in Africa and India (and they haven't even reached anything near their full potential, especially in regards to storage) than years of painstaking and monopolised (corrupt) attempts to build fossil backed grids.

Developing countries don't need the strain of more coal as electricity storage becomes more popular. They can largely avoid the endless costs of centralised energy production, and build better smarter grids. They also will bare the brunt of carbon emissions if we simply don't bother mitigation. This latest attempt to play faux hero of the poor by the fossil industry is hilariously transparent.

(I also like the uber scare word "central planners". I suppose that's supposed to make us think of Brasilia or something)

FYI the coal industry's worst enemy is ... the coal industry. I have no sympathy for an industry that basically canabalised itself for the sake of greed.

[RFayette]

When did I talk about central planning? Who are these central planners?

Well, for starters, the UN is very explicitly trying to stop Africa from using fossil fuel energy and pretty much wants to prohibit it from ever enjoying the energy prosperity we have here.  This, along with things like the Kyoto Protocol  can really damage the developing world.....my position is that we should allow countries to use all energy resources they have available to them so they can have the opportunity to prosper just as we have.  If the temperature increases really start to spike, then we can revisit the issue.  Frankly, I'd much rather explore geoengineering solutions like SO2 pumping into the atmosphere at that point though.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Just wondering, are you the sort of person who refuses to go the doctor until their limbs are literally turning black and falling off?

[traininthedistance]

Frankly, I'd much rather explore geoengineering solutions like SO2 pumping into the atmosphere at that point though.

And how is that supposed to help ocean acidification, exactly?

[RFayette]

Just wondering, are you the sort of person who refuses to go the doctor until their limbs are literally turning black and falling off?

I support adaptation to climate change as well as geoengineering research.  I simply don't like the idea of CO2 emission reductions at this juncture and oppose a lot of the UN's actions on this issue. 

[traininthedistance]

While I don't favor artificially pumping up coal, I don't want to tear them down more than what they're facing right now through additional CO2 regulations at this juncture.  Yes, Heartland is biased, but so are Greenpeace, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, etc.  The question is the facts that the source presents, because nearly any source on climate change will have a position/bias.  

My point is, there are many meteorologists (who, while not climate scientists, do have a lot of experience with weather patterns and climate data) and climate scientists who are at least somewhat skeptical of parts of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, namely the catastrophic part.  My position is that draconian emissions restrictions, blocking of coal plant construction, etc. do more harm to the economy than whatever marginal temperature benefit that might be accrued by not constructing them.  

Not all biases are made equal.  As New Canadaland points out:

If someone actually did debunk climate change, they should be getting tons of awards.

The way science works, there's plenty of reward for "changing the conversation" and debunking old theories.  If climate change could honestly have been debunked, it would have been.  Whereas with Heartland (and, let's be honest, in the hearts and minds of otherwise-decent people whose short-term comfort is reliant on not having to pay the social cost of emissions), well I think Upton Sinclair had the last word on that, when he said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

As for meteorologists vs. climatologists, it's just a different set of tools due to the different scale, and people don't really appreciate the ways in which they diverge.  It's kind of almost like a classical Newtonian approach (which would be trying to predict next week's weather) vs. a probabilistic quantum approach (trying to predict next century's climate).

As for how "catastrophic"?  I dunno.  We'll survive as a species.  But I don't think that a "new normal" of having to slowly abandon our coastal areas (and crashing GDP when that happens), creating millions of refugees, paying more for food, and causing some scary large percentage of the world's species to go extinct is really worth whatever it is we're clinging to.  That's a catastrophe of sorts even if it ain't Venus.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Seeing as the UN has literally no power over anything of importance, I think you're safe from anything too far-reaching coming from them.

So, even if it's cost-effective, you oppose cutting emissions because ... it's the future's problem? Well, I suppose that's a, err, honest position to take. I tend to be sceptical of geoengineering, because every attempt has been (pardon my langauge) retarded, beyond the obvious stuff like 'don't treat the ocean like an everlasting fish factory' which is going to get ignored anyway. Can you believe the media are still talking about iron seeding? FFS.

[RFayette]

I think that's where we disagree train is the extent of the problem.  Given how the vast majority climate models have systematically overestimated warming by a very large margin over the past 20-30 years, I think that basing the future on those predictions isn't the best idea.  I don't think we'll have to abandon all our coasts if we continue to warm at the rate we have in the past 10 years, especially with adaptation and technological innovation........engineering really can solve a lot of problems.  Virtually every environmental catastrophe predicted by scientists, like the overpopulation scare, have been offset by massive human innovations.   We can adapt to new climate patterns, and I'm sure engineers can find a way to make coastal living more than bearable in the future. 

Anyways, I didn't mean to cause so much discord with this.  Let's be honest; none of us have any control over what's going to happen.  None of us are politicians, nor meteorologists, nor geoengineers, nor climate scientists.  I think we'll call it a night on this one. 

[Ban my account ffs!]

Indeed.  The disagreement lies in the extent of the problem and the solutions needed.  Beyond that I see it politicized.

And dogmatized.

When people post a graphic of almost global temps in 2014 (there was lots of filling in and even then large portions of the globe are uncovered) to prove the urban heat island effect doesn't exist...you quickly realize this issue has nothing to do with science...but faith first...justification later.

Perhaps New Canadaland should know that the graphic he posted had a 1200km smoothing effect added to it to cover massive empty gaps where no data is collected...but that this also blends urban and rural stations together.

The great irony is that one urban station on land could be covering 1200km out into the Pacific...so literally there could be an urban heat island effect in the Pacific.

But shhhh...(whispers) im just a stupid denier!

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

For the record, I've never been an alarmist. I don't believe climate change will see the end of mankind or anything like that. I do think that it will have negative consequences overall, obviously, some areas will see some positives, ie increased greening in the colder areas (but in certain eco-systems that could also be a negative) etc... but overall negative.

I agree, that the issue is what we do - I do think we need to make high-level and high-intensity emissions financially unattractive, increase support for alternatives BUT I think the danger is trying to create a critical mass on issues like renewables that might not exist. The negative impacts of reliance of heavy fossil fuels go beyond the impact when it comes to CO2 in the atmosphere, but for short-term public health.

The short-sighted view, generally pushed by Conservatives on this front is "OMGZ the economy!!" and yes, impacted industries need transitional support etc, but the opportunities for the economy for increased diversification and innovation. This might mean some short term pain as the economy adjusts, but these industries and technologies are on the way out in the west and peak emissions from China could be reached a lot sooner than anticipated.... so it's not so much forcing strong and vibrant industries out of business, it's recognising the trajectory and doing something BEFORE the bottom drops out.

[Boston Bread]

I fully realize there is smoothing, that's why the graph is made of chunks instead of having a continuous temperature gradient. But do notice how little correlation there is between being close to a city and temperature deviation. Including places well over a thousand km from a major city, like in the middle of the ocean. And the regions with the most warming are the poles, so if they were included the map would be even more strikingly red. No big cities in any sort of proximity there either.

You don't have the full story on feedback cycles. Negative feedback such as ocean absorption of CO2 are more dominant under a small change in CO2 and temperature. In the case of the ocean as CO2 increases there will be a limit to how much CO2 the ocean can hold so this negative feedback decreases as CO2 emissions rise. Couple that with the fact that the most severe positive feedback (permafrost, albedo, forest loss - which if fully activated would produce a stronger effect than the CO2 contributed by humans) do not become significant until the warming is significant (2 degrees C ish) means that it is reasonable to expect the current insignificant feedback to become largely positive if global temperatures are not kept under that.

Here's a source on climate sensitivity being 1 degree for CO2 only and 1.5-4.5 degrees including feedback. So even under the lowest sensitivity bound it only takes ~700ppm to reach 2 degrees of warming (a good chunk of the emissions at that point wouldn't be from human sources but melting permafrost and the like so it's under that in reality).
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23950-leaked-ipcc-report-doesnt-let-us-off-the-hook.html#.VXaDSmRViko

I have never heard of the solar constant. But the effects of solar cycles on climate is well documented by the same climate science that is being disputed.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24512-solar-activity-heads-for-lowest-low-in-four-centuries.html#.VXaEUGRViko

If you want to counter climate science findings, at least try to counter the actual research instead of caricatures of climate science which do not exist outside your thought bubble.

And enough with this belittling talk of "dogma" or "politicizing", it makes you sound like a tinfoil-wearing crackpot. Is presenting research or data politicizing?

[Boston Bread]

It's also wrong to say climate models are overestimating recent warming (or lack of) significantly.
http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-models-predict-warming-20150128-story.html
Predicting warming over a decade as of now isn't problematic, especially since not a lot of warming is in store in the near future. The uncertainty is much higher over a period of a century due to feedback cycles.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I should contextualise my comments, I wasn't saying it to be smug etc - a lot of the more skeptical types tend to leap all over the data issue, like it's some kind of grand conspiracy they're uncovering. But it tends to show they've never really undertaken work that involves statistical collection at the same time as improving technology and with significant natural variations. Data is almost always adjusted (or as some would say for dramatic effect, manipulated) to account for these variations, cloud, wind, faults etc. Also improving technology does impact the quality of projections as they occur, but if that means it wasn't correct at the outset, then it must be fraud deliberate or accidental.

Also, I'm not sure where these loggerheads between meteorologists and climate scientists (many of whom have a background in meteorology) are...   

[jimrtex]

Interestingly...warming in California is positively correlated to county population size!

Humans emit CO2.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Interestingly...warming in California is positively correlated to county population size!

In California, small population counties are in the north and large population counties tend to be mainly in the south, the fact that small population California counties are cooler is hardly surprising. This is a clear case where multivariate statistical analysis is needed, or at the very least, analysis needs to be made of a state where population size is not as heavily correlated with latitude as California is. Otherwise, it appears climate deniers are cherry-picking data to serve their purposes, but of course only climate scarers would want to do that.

[Torie]

Interestingly...warming in California is positively correlated to county population size!

In California, small population counties are in the north and large population counties tend to be mainly in the south, the fact that small population California counties are cooler is hardly surprising. This is a clear case where multivariate statistical analysis is needed, or at the very least, analysis needs to be made of a state where population size is not as heavily correlated with latitude as California is. Otherwise, it appears climate deniers are cherry-picking data to serve their purposes, but of course only climate scarers would want to do that.

It's the slope of the lines that matter, not the absolute temperature readings.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's the slope of the lines that matter, not the absolute temperature readings.

And that wouldn't be affected by the latitude, altitude, and various other factors beyond proximity to a heat island that also correlate with population size in California?

[Ban my account ffs!]

It's the slope of the lines that matter, not the absolute temperature readings.

And that wouldn't be affected by the latitude, altitude, and various other factors beyond proximity to a heat island that also correlate with population size in California?

Co2 is nearly uniform over all California counties and the argument is that urban heat islands have such little impact that it doesn't matter if you adjust for them.  Instead, the "consensus" argument is that co2 and not uhi is the culprit.

This is why they can toss rural weather stations out of the matrix that comprises global temperatures and then fill in the rural areas with urban weather observations while not adjusting for urban heat islands.  It also explains why the surface observation datasets are diverging upwards away from satellite derived observations which cover the entire atmospheric column and the entire globe every day.

[Ban my account ffs!]

But more to the point, Torie is right. Only the slope matters.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's the slope of the lines that matter, not the absolute temperature readings.

And that wouldn't be affected by the latitude, altitude, and various other factors beyond proximity to a heat island that also correlate with population size in California?

Co2 is nearly uniform over all California counties and the argument is that urban heat islands have such little impact that it doesn't matter if you adjust for them.  Instead, the "consensus" argument is that co2 and not uhi is the culprit.

This is why they can toss rural weather stations out of the matrix that comprises global temperatures and then fill in the rural areas with urban weather observations while not adjusting for urban heat islands.  It also explains why the surface observation datasets are diverging upwards away from satellite derived observations which cover the entire atmospheric column and the entire globe every day.

You have a definite future as a political candidate in debates.  This is a textbook example of refusing to answer the question and instead continuing to spew your own preferred talking point.

I repeat, if your point were valid, it should be possible to replicate your graph in places where population density does not strongly correlate with physical geography as it does in California.