Study reveals urgent new time frame for climate change

Oct 09, 2013
This photo shows rich benthic fauna and associated reef fish in Southeast Sulawesi, Indonesia. Credit: Keoki Stender, Marinelifephotography.com

Ecological and societal disruptions by modern climate change are critically determined by the time frame over which climates shift. Camilo Mora and colleagues in the College of Social Sciences' Department of Geography at the University of Hawaii, Manoa have developed one such time frame. The study, entitled "The projected timing of climate departure from recent variability," will be published in the October 10 issue of Nature and provides an index of the year when the mean climate of any given location on Earth will shift continuously outside the most extreme records experienced in the past 150 years.

The new index shows a surprising result. Areas in the tropics are projected to experience unprecedented climates first – within the next decade. Under a business-as-usual scenario, the index shows the average location on Earth will experience a radically different climate by 2047. Under an alternate scenario with greenhouse gas emissions stabilization, the global mean climate departure will be 2069.

"The results shocked us. Regardless of the scenario, changes will be coming soon," said lead author Camilo Mora. "Within my generation, whatever climate we were used to will be a thing of the past."

The scientists calculated the index for additional variables including evaporation, precipitation, and ocean surface temperature and pH. When looking at sea surface pH, the index indicates that we surpassed the limits of historical extremes in 2008. This is consistent with other recent studies, and is explained by the fact that ocean pH has a narrow range of historical variability and because the ocean has absorbed a considerable fraction of human-caused CO2 emissions.

The study found that the overarching global effect of climate change on biodiversity will occur not only as a result of the largest absolute changes at the poles, but also, perhaps more urgently, from small but rapid changes in the tropics.

Tropical are unaccustomed to climate variability and are therefore more vulnerable to relatively small changes. The tropics hold the world's greatest diversity of marine and terrestrial species and will experience unprecedented climates some 10 years earlier than anywhere else on Earth. Previous studies have already shown that corals and other tropical species are currently living in areas near their physiological limits. The study suggests that conservation planning could be undermined as protected areas will face unprecedented climates just as early and because most centers of high species diversity are located in developing countries

This is the watershed overseeing coral reefs, Kāneʻohe Bay, Oʻahu, Hawaiʻi. Credit: Keoki Stender, Marinelifephotography.com

Rapid change will tamper with the functioning of Earth's biological systems, forcing species to either move in an attempt to track suitable climates, stay and try to adapt to the new climate, or go extinct. "This work demonstrates that we are pushing the ecosystems of the world out of the environment in which they evolved into wholly new conditions that they may not be able to cope with. Extinctions are likely to result," said Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science's Department of Global Ecology, and who was not involved in this study. "Some ecosystems may be able to adapt, but for others, such as coral reefs, complete loss of not only individual species but their entire integrity is likely."

These changes will affect our social systems as well. The impacts on the tropics have implications globally as they are home to most of the world's population, contribute significantly to total food supplies, and house much of the world's biodiversity.

In predominately developing countries, over one billion people under an optimistic scenario, and five billion under a business-as-usual-scenario, live in areas that will experience extreme climates before 2050. This raises concerns for changes in the supply of food and water, human health, wider spread of infectious diseases, heat stress, conflicts, and challenges to economies. "Our results suggest that countries first impacted by unprecedented climates are the ones with the least capacity to respond," said coauthor Ryan Longman. "Ironically, these are the countries that are least responsible for climate change in the first place."

"This paper is unusually important. It builds on earlier work but brings the biological and human consequences into sharper focus," said Jane Lubchenco, former Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and now of Oregon State University, who was not involved in this study. "It connects the dots between climate models and impacts to biodiversity in a stunningly fresh way, and it has sobering ramifications for species and people."

While the study describes global averages, the authors have visualized their data on an interactive map displaying when climate will exceed historical precedents for locations around the world. "We hope that with this map people can see and understand the progression of climate change in time where they live, hopefully connecting people more closely to the issue and increasing awareness about the urgency to act," said coauthor Abby Frazier.

The index used the minimum and maximum temperatures from 1860-2005 to define the bounds of historical climate variability at any given location. The scientists then took projections for the next 100 years to identify the year in which the future temperature at any given location on Earth will shift completely outside the limits of historical precedents, defining that year as the year of climate departure.

The data came from 39 Earth System Models developed independently by 21 climate centers in 12 different countries. The models have been effective at reproducing current climate conditions and varied in their projected departure times by no more than five years.

The study suggests that any progress to slow ongoing climate change will require a larger commitment from developed countries to reduce emissions, but also more extensive funding of social and conservation programs in developing countries to minimize climate change impacts. The longer we wait, the more difficult remediation will be.

"Scientists have repeatedly warned about and its likely effects on biodiversity and people," said Mora. "Our study shows that such changes are already upon us. These results should not be reason to give up. Rather, they should encourage us to reduce emissions and slow the rate of change. This can buy time for species, ecosystems, and ourselves to adapt to the coming changes."

Explore further: EU leaders seek last-minute climate deal

More information: dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12540

Related Stories

Climate change threatens hotspots of genetic diversity

Aug 01, 2013

(Phys.org) —Past climates shaped the current hotspots of genetic diversity for the grey long-eared bat, one of the UK's rarest mammals, but future climate change threatens these biodiversity hotspots, according ...

Recommended for you

EU leaders seek last-minute climate deal

19 minutes ago

European Union leaders came under pressure Thursday to strike a deal aimed at bolstering Brussels as a trailblazer in fighting global climate change as negotiations went down to the wire.

Research team studies 'regime shifts' in ecosystems

2 hours ago

The prehistory of major ecological shifts spanning multiple millennia can be read in the fine print of microscopic algae, according to a new study led by researchers at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

User comments : 64

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

hemitite
1.7 / 5 (28) Oct 09, 2013
When o when will it ever be Too Late? I suspect that the Climatological variant of Zeno's Paradox will long delay that sad day to the great relief of the publish or perish crowd.
deatopmg
2 / 5 (35) Oct 09, 2013
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. " H.L. Mencken
TheHealthPhysicist
2.6 / 5 (29) Oct 09, 2013
Climate change deniers are morons.
thefurlong
2.9 / 5 (30) Oct 09, 2013
When o when will it ever be Too Late? I suspect that the Climatological variant of Zeno's Paradox will long delay that sad day to the great relief of the publish or perish crowd.


There is no Zeno's paradox. It's already too late. Now, it's a matter of damage control.

We are already seeing the effects. The oceans are warming and acidifying. The arctic ice's minimum extent was HALF of what it was in 1984. Countries such as Bangladesh are experiencing flooding from the melting of the Himalayan glaciers and a rising sea level from the south.
Seriously, just what would it take to convince you climate change deniers that climate change is happening?
VendicarE
3.3 / 5 (18) Oct 09, 2013
"When o when will it ever be Too Late?" - Hermaphrotite

Asks the frog in the pot of warming water.

djr
3.7 / 5 (16) Oct 09, 2013
deatopmg - ""The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed"

deatopmg asserts that this research team from the university of Hawaii - department of geography - is involved in a grand conspiracy to keep the populace 'alarmed'. It makes much more sense to me that they are actually honest scientists - trying to understand a very complex climate. Deatopmg is the one with a detachment from reality.
Water_Prophet
1.5 / 5 (23) Oct 09, 2013
@Vendi-well said, but not alarmist enough
Ask the frogs dying from fungus and bacteria who have come to abundance becasue it's gotten just a little more humid.
Sinister1811
2.8 / 5 (26) Oct 10, 2013
Climate change deniers are morons.


Exactly. And how do those people explain the number of coral bleachings? These are things that didn't used to happen very often. NASA have been keeping track of these things for years, including the ice melt at the Arctic. I think I'll listen to the world's top scientists, and not some website that you can find on Google.

http://en.wikiped...leaching
vlaaing peerd
3.8 / 5 (11) Oct 10, 2013
The whole problem with the debate is the utterly useless need to have an opinion about things we observe, same goes for the AGW-ers as well albeit I think they are a little more in touch with reality here.

Opinions bend, swing, distort and rape facts and reality, the only real thing is cm's of rising sea levels, degrees C (F if you will) changes in temperatures and ppm's of CO2 in the air.

NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (25) Oct 10, 2013
The Boy Who Cried Wolf:

"When the villagers saw no wolf they sternly said, "Save your frightened song for when there is really something wrong! Don't cry 'wolf' when there is NO wolf!"

But the boy just grinned and watched them go grumbling down the hill once more.

Later, he saw a REAL wolf prowling about his flock. Alarmed, he leaped to his feet and sang out as loudly as he could, "Wolf! Wolf!"

But the villagers thought he was trying to fool them again, and so they didn't come."
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (25) Oct 10, 2013
The Emperor's New Clothes:

" A child, however, who had no important job and could only see things as his eyes showed them to him, went up to the carriage.

"The Emperor is naked," he said.

"Fool!" his father reprimanded, running after him. "Don't talk nonsense!" He grabbed his child and took him away. But the boy's remark, which had been heard by the bystanders, was repeated over and over again until everyone cried:

"The boy is right! The Emperor is naked! It's true!"

The Emperor realized that the people were right but could not admit to that. He though it better to continue the procession under the illusion that anyone who couldn't see his clothes was either stupid or incompetent. And he stood stiffly on his carriage, while behind him a page held his imaginary mantle."
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (27) Oct 10, 2013
Real old thermometer records nearly all show utterly no deviation from their natural trend of centuries:
http://i.minus.com/idAOoE.gif

Actual tide gauge records extending back a century and a half nearly all show utterly no deviation from their natural trendline:
http://s23.postim...andy.gif

There's nothing there, in the actual data central to the climate debate. When I listen to top physicist Freeman Dyson about the silliness of climate models that all alarmist predictions are based on, I am not idly relying on Google, as a very activist regular calling himself Sinister seems to be very well aware of in a way that renders his naively innocent tone indeed quite sinister. Loudly feigned ignorance of serious skepticism represents a creepy effort to mislead.

"thefurlong" above is at it too, slanderously inferring that skeptics can't read simple graphs that show that natural climate change boringly continues, as if climate change itself is being denied?!
Sinister1811
2.9 / 5 (27) Oct 10, 2013
Nik, the effects aren't 100% obvious or noticeable here on the ground. But if you monitored the Arctic and global temperatures for decades like NASA and the ESA have done, you'd see some differences and changes.
NikFromNYC
1.5 / 5 (26) Oct 10, 2013
Climatologist and staunchly outspoken skeptic Dr. John Christy *runs* one of the NASA satellite global average temperature data sets. This means that NASA people who launch real satellites are skeptics, like Dr. Roy Spenser too, whereas the NASA alarmist "Hockey Stick Team" data set is based on thermometer records having nothing to do with modern satellites but only computer programs created by a single corner office above Tom's Diner two blocks from me here in the Columbia University area where I learned what real science looked like.

You're not being sincere and authentic, Mr. Sinister, as you parrot Al Gore sponsored, PR firm created spin meant to deny the public awareness of the quite serious basis of competent climate skepticism.

-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (27) Oct 10, 2013
The bizarreness of the claim that, "The index used the minimum and maximum temperatures from 1860-2005 to define the bounds of historical climate variability at any given location." can be understood by anyone willing to take a quick glance at the standard global average temperature data, with a mere short gap cut in the middle to divide new variation visually from the low carbon dioxide era before it, to see that recent variation is exactly (!) the same in nature as the one before:

http://www.woodfo.../to:1950

This HADCRUT4 data is the most up to date, least controversial global average temperature series, a standard used by all climatologists.

Claiming recent variation is new in scope is simply fraudulent in a way that astonishes mostly by its continuing effectiveness on real policy makers and the low information voters who support them.
foolspoo
2.6 / 5 (22) Oct 10, 2013
Man, these walls have become remarkably incompetent. Used to be able to find inspiration in here
NikFromNYC
1.4 / 5 (27) Oct 10, 2013
Real NASA participants in the actual *space* program instead of just supercomputer modelers in activist James Hansen's little office, are universally skeptical, very bluntly so, gathered in a quick summary here:
http://a2.img.mob...arge.jpg

"Sinister" is well aware of this but writes *as* *if* he is not aware of it, as automatics ratings bots down-rate my every post within a few minutes, from accounts that have never posted a comment, revealed by the Activity tab if you view the profile of any poster to this discussion that also includes death threat flinging official environmentalism troll Scott Nudds as VendicarE, "vendicar" being a word for revenge as regular death threats here have resulted in bans of VendicarB, VendicarC and VendicarD.
Pattern_chaser
4.1 / 5 (15) Oct 10, 2013
The climes, they are a changin'. I've seen it happen in my own lifetime. And I'm not an automatic ratings bot, I'm a real person concerned by those who can't accept what is real and measurable.
triplehelix
1.4 / 5 (22) Oct 10, 2013
When o when will it ever be Too Late? I suspect that the Climatological variant of Zeno's Paradox will long delay that sad day to the great relief of the publish or perish crowd.


There is no Zeno's paradox. It's already too late. Now, it's a matter of damage control.

We are already seeing the effects. The oceans are warming and acidifying. The arctic ice's minimum extent was HALF of what it was in 1984. Countries such as Bangladesh are experiencing flooding from the melting of the Himalayan glaciers and a rising sea level from the south.
Seriously, just what would it take to convince you climate change deniers that climate change is happening?


Most people don't deny the climate is changing. Most "deniers" issues are whether it is man made and if we can do anything about it anyway.

Yes places are flooding, it happens all the time naturally. Prove it is caused by humans. You can't. You can only make hypothetical results from trial and error models.
triplehelix
1.3 / 5 (24) Oct 10, 2013
Just like the religious of many centuries and millenia ago always saying the next apocalypse is soon.

In 2050 when everything is fine, I wonder what the new apocalyptic date will be, and if as many sheeple will be following the commands of their religion, that is AGW.

No surrender!

Please purchase carbon credits from my website, to offset your carbon. It is true. Bits of paper with ink on them destroy CO2 molecules.

Carbon credits for everyone!

What a bunch of BS
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 10, 2013
…..with a mere short gap cut in the middle to divide new variation visually from the low carbon dioxide era before it, to see that recent variation is exactly (!) the same in nature as the one before:

Correct Nik - because of …
http://en.wikiped..._dimming

"Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. .. aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action."
Claiming recent variation is new in scope is simply fraudulent in a way that astonishes mostly by its continuing effectiveness on real policy makers and the low information voters who support them.

What astonishes me is that you're unable to distinguish other factors that temporarily affect global temperature.
Moebius
2.7 / 5 (22) Oct 10, 2013
Sounds like all the stuff I've been saying for years, and I say it's even worse than this article says. It doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes to figure it out either.
pantsonfire
1.1 / 5 (21) Oct 10, 2013
The People need power (heat their homes) and money (feed their families).

The Global Warming Priests need power (authority and control) and money (grants, taxes, mansion, private jets).

Punch that into your calculators and see what spits out.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (21) Oct 10, 2013
We'll all be saved if we just add turbulence to the system!

http://www.thunde...ence.htm
thefurlong
2.9 / 5 (23) Oct 10, 2013

Yes places are flooding, it happens all the time naturally. Prove it is caused by humans. You can't. You can only make hypothetical results from trial and error models.


DO. YOUR. RESEARCH.

From the IPCC website:
"Anthropogenic change has been detected in surface temperature with very high significance levels (less than 1% error probability)."
"It is extremely unlikely (<5%) that recent global warming is due to internal variability alone such as might arise from El Niño...The widespread nature of the warming...reduces the possibility that the warming could have resulted from internal variability."
"Climate models only reproduce the observed 20th-century global mean surface warming when both anthropogenic and natural forcings are included."
"No climate model that has used natural forcing only has reproduced the observed global warming trend over the 2nd half of the 20th century."
And there's plenty more where that came from.
thefurlong
2.8 / 5 (20) Oct 10, 2013
The People need power (heat their homes) and money (feed their families).

The Global Warming Priests need power (authority and control) and money (grants, taxes, mansion, private jets).

Punch that into your calculators and see what spits out.


Can you even tell me the reasons that the so-called "Global Warming Priests" actually posit anthropogenic climate change? Why don't you actually do research on the subject instead of spreading lies?
Sinister1811
2.8 / 5 (22) Oct 10, 2013
Man, are these guys talking hockey sticks again? Puck this conversation. lol
thefurlong
2.9 / 5 (21) Oct 10, 2013
Real old thermometer records...
http://i.minus.com/idAOoE.gif

Actual tide gauge records...
http://s23.postim...andy.gif


Nice try, but those graphs present only temperature recordings cherry-picked from specific locations. Curiously absent from those graphs are temperatures recorded at locations other than in the temperate zone, except, perhaps for Geneva. What matters is Global Mean Temperature

http://www.justfa...2001.png

http://www.justfa...2007.PNG

And ocean surface temperature :
http://www.epa.go...2013.gif


"thefurlong" above is at it too, slanderously inferring that skeptics can't read simple graphs...


Not necessarily. I am inferring that denialists like you cherry pick data and ignore the actual data that matters.
foolspoo
1.6 / 5 (21) Oct 10, 2013
what is with the incredibly pathetic arrogance that we are the omnipotent species of this planet. the earths climate history of 150 years is irrelevant
pantsonfire
1.4 / 5 (20) Oct 10, 2013
@thefurlong:
Can you even tell me the reasons that the so-called "Global Warming Priests" actually posit anthropogenic climate change?


Sure, that's the stuff below in the parenthesis.

The Global Warming Priests need power (authority and control) and money (grants, taxes, mansion, private jets).
thefurlong
2.9 / 5 (21) Oct 10, 2013

Sure, that's the stuff below in the parenthesis.

The Global Warming Priests need power (authority and control) and money (grants, taxes, mansion, private jets).


You silly goose! I was talking about the reasons they give, not why you think they posit climate change! You know...the kind you find by doing research. Unless you think that they arrive at conclusions like denialists do research, exemplified by the following dramatic reenactment:
Johnny - "Them liberal muslim commies repeating what has actually been experimentally observed really sticks in my craw! I hafta do something about it!"
Turns on computer.
Johnny - "Hey computer! Find out why global warming is a hoax!"
Computer does not respond.
Mother chimes in from upstairs, "You have to type it in, Johnny."
Johnny - "Dagnammit."
Types in "Global warming hoax"...
dlethe
1.2 / 5 (17) Oct 11, 2013
Give me a break. The latest IPCC report reveals not ONE of their models can even account for the lack of temperature increase that all of their models predicted.

There is no proof of anthropomorphic global warming. There is no mathematical model that predicted the temperatures of the past. There is no track record of correct temperature predictions.

Yet these arrogant global warming THEORISTS keep telling people that we are deniers. That isn't how science works. Prove your global warming theories and then you can call people deniers. Not until then.
Howhot
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 11, 2013
2047 sounds about right for the first real big waves of heat to pour on. That should be when the droughts really do start effecting the food supplies, forest fires rage and every other god awful prediction from the consequences of global warm begin to really bear fruit. I predicted 2040 myself.

After that it's SOYLENT GREEN TIME BABY!

pantsonfire
1.1 / 5 (17) Oct 11, 2013
You silly goose! I was talking about the reasons they give, not why you think they posit climate change! You know...the kind you find by doing research.


Ah, clearer now. Well the basic reasons are that CO2 in the atmosphere is part of the greenhouse effect, man's burning of fossil fuels has increased the amount of CO2 and temperatures have been rising for at least the thermometer record of the past 150 years.

After that it gets complicated. All I know is that some are hell bent on lots of policies and none of them are free. When somebody wants to spend my money and tell me how to live, I like to take a second look and a step back to ponder.

It the "tell me how live" part that I assign the term Priests since I had a bad childhood in that regard. That's all.
pantsonfire
1.5 / 5 (19) Oct 11, 2013
Give me a break. The latest IPCC report reveals not ONE of their models can even account for the lack of temperature increase that all of their models predicted


Actually, that's incorrect. 3 out of 114 CMIP5 models were below the observed temperatures of the past 15 years.

Source: "However, an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 historical simulations (augmented for the period 2006–2012 by RCP4.5 simulations, Section 9.3.2) reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST trend over 1998–2012 that is higher than the entire HadCRUT4 trend ensemble (Box 9.2 Figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble-mean trend is 0.21 ºC per decade)" http://www.climat...er09.pdf

@thefurlong: Yes, I have been paying attention, close attention.
thefurlong
2.6 / 5 (18) Oct 11, 2013

Ah, clearer now. Well the basic reasons are that CO2 in the atmosphere is part of the greenhouse effect, man's burning of fossil fuels has increased the amount of CO2 and temperatures have been rising for at least the thermometer record of the past 150 years.


Well, aside from recognizing that C02 is a greenhouse gas, the rest of that would not actually be sufficient. Correlation is not causation. Do you think that climate scientists would have just stopped there, and called "checkmate"? Do you have any better understanding of current climate science than common knowledge?

After that it gets complicated.

So, probably not, then.

All I know is that some are hell bent on lots of policies and none of them are free.

Yes, but clearly the multi-billion dollar Oil and Coal industries would never sabotage efforts to reduce use of or regulate of the product they sell.
Can you tell me what profit there is in telling people to reduce their carbon footprint?
thefurlong
2.8 / 5 (20) Oct 11, 2013

Actually, that's incorrect. 3 out of 114 CMIP5 models were below the observed temperatures of the past 15 years.


Here's the problem with that. 15 years is not long enough to determine if warming has ceased within the same statistical error, as, say the last 150 years. This is just simple statistics. The more samples you take, the better you can estimate the trend. It really all depends on the statistical moments. Take a look at this graph:
http://static.gui...nd12.jpg

The two color lines represent best fit lines using least squares over two different 15 year periods. Notice that the slope of the line is strongly influenced by the year picked.

Hence, 15 years is not long enough to determine whether global warming has accelerated or decelerated.
Please take a look at this page (http://www.skepti...nk.html) for more information.
runrig
5 / 5 (10) Oct 11, 2013
Yet these arrogant global warming THEORISTS keep telling people that we are deniers. That isn't how science works. Prove your global warming theories and then you can call people deniers. Not until then.


Yes, do give us a break - go away then come back when you know/understand the theories.

The current "pause" (global air temp not sea) is due to a short-term cyclic climate fluctuations – which needs time to play out. It is just a redistribution of internal heat in the climate system (air + oceans) and 30 yrs generally sees us through these. vis ENSO, Low solar, and aerosol production (China)
GCM's cannot forecast these short-term fluctuations and just as "weather" is not included in them (not necessary+impossible) they are too just "noise" in the system that play out over the TOP of the general warming trend.

What matters is the imbalance between solar in and heat out (TOA) ... and that's due CO2

Sorry about the complicated words - like I said you'll just have to study.
pantsonfire
1.2 / 5 (20) Oct 11, 2013
Do you have any better understanding of current climate science than common knowledge?


Yes, actually I do. Quoting Chapter 9 of the recent IPCC AR5 should have given you some sort of clue.

Can you tell me what profit there is in telling people to reduce their carbon footprint?


Renewable energy is a multi-billion dollar industry as are the multitude of companies who offers services to make other corporations or government projects more "green".

Yes, but clearly the multi-billion dollar Oil and Coal industries would never sabotage efforts to reduce use of or regulate of the product they sell.


That sounds like a conspiracy theory. Besides, companies like Shell and BP have huge renewable energy divisions. Your pension or IRA likely has stock in those companies so you might want to cheer on their profits.
pantsonfire
1 / 5 (20) Oct 11, 2013
15 years is not long enough to determine if warming has ceased within the same statistical error, as, say the last 150 years. This is just simple statistics. The more samples you take, the better you can estimate the trend. It really all depends on the statistical moments.


I don't disagree with that. However, the key issue is what can you conclude from 15 years of temperature data? Maybe not too much but it's definitely not a confidence booster. And keep in mind what Ben Santer et al concluded:

"Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature." http://onlinelibr...abstract

If I go the skepticalscience.com trend calculator and get a trend from RSS for the past 17 years (1996.9-2013.8) I get a trend of -0.004C/decade. Or if you prefer a more massaged temperature dataset, HadCRUT4 shows +0.048C/decade over the same time period.
thefurlong
2.9 / 5 (21) Oct 11, 2013

Renewable energy is a multi-billion dollar industry as are the multitude of companies who offers services to make other corporations or government projects more "green".


That sounds like a conspiracy theory. Besides, companies like Shell and BP have huge renewable energy divisions. Your pension or IRA likely has stock in those companies so you might want to cheer on their profits.


Ahh, so it is valid for you to point out that renewable energy would benefit financially from alarmism, but it is conspiracy theorizing for me to point out that the far wealthier oil corporations would benefit from denial? How about ExxonMobile, Koch Industries, or Western Fuel Association? I suppose all the evidence of their funding GW denial think tanks is invalid too.

How about realizing that an appeal to motive is not a valid argument when assessing scientific results. So, let's stop talking about it, ok?
thefurlong
2.9 / 5 (21) Oct 11, 2013
I don't disagree with that.

So, you admit that using the last 15 years tells us very little about global warming trends. I assume that as a good skeptic, you'll take that into account.
However,

You need another argument to be torn down. Ok, then! Do I eventually get paid?
the key issue is what can you conclude from 15 years of temperature data? Maybe not too much but it's definitely not a confidence booster. And keep in mind what Ben Santer et al concluded:

"Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature." http://onlinelibr...abstract

Yeah, but he didn't say 17 years is the length required for identifying whether Global Warming has ceased, so that's a non-sequitur. Anything else?
thefurlong
2.8 / 5 (20) Oct 11, 2013
If I go the skepticalscience.com trend calculator and get a trend from RSS for the past 17 years (1996.9-2013.8) I get a trend of -0.004C/decade. Or if you prefer a more massaged temperature dataset, HadCRUT4 shows +0.048C/decade over the same time period.

Correlation is not causation. In order to establish cause, you need to eliminate all other possibilities. For example, comparing your trend calculations with models that only use natural forcing vs. ones that include anthropogenic effects goes a long way. Comparing historical climate changes and natural conditions back then with conditions now is even better. Hell, I am sure there are even better ways that I am unaware of.
Just finding whether the temperature fluctuated up or down over 10 years tells you very little in this regard.
thefurlong
2.8 / 5 (20) Oct 11, 2013
@pantsonfire

So, in summation of our debate so far, you argued that 15 years of data is sufficient to establish that GW has ceased, which I then convinced you was incorrect.

Then, you tried to change the subject by giving a quote that has nothing to do with global warming trends.

Then, you tried to use it in conjunction with an online trend calculator and claimed that somehow, temperature fluctuations over the last 17 years without ANY OTHER CONTEXT was sufficient to establish that humans haven't contributed to GW.

The pattern here is typical of GW denialists, creationists, and and the like. You raise these paper edifices of cherry picking, anecdotes, inchoate understandings, and lies, and you hide behind them, ignoring the fact that they are still just flimsy paper, and ignoring the glaring reality right outside your doors.

Then again, your arguments are more like roaches--easily squashed, but difficult to exterminate because they breed too quickly.
pantsonfire
1 / 5 (20) Oct 11, 2013
...you argued that 15 years of data is sufficient to establish that GW has ceased...


I never said GW has ceased.

Then, you ... claimed that ... humans haven't contributed to GW.


I never said humans haven't contributed to GW.

The pattern here is typical...


Yes, the pattern here is typical of GW alarmists. You raise these paper edifices of cherry picking, anecdotes, inchoate understandings, and lies, and you hide behind them, ignoring the fact that they are still just flimsy paper, and ignoring the glaring reality right outside your doors.

What a fine combination of the strawman attack and the ad hominem attack. All you're missing is the argument from authority and you'd have the Triple Crown of Logical Fallacies.
thefurlong
2.8 / 5 (20) Oct 11, 2013
I never said GW has ceased.

Ok, ok, I lumped you togethether with dlethe. Mia culpa.
I never said humans haven't contributed to GW.

So what were you saying? Maybe I misunderstood.

What a fine combination of the strawman attack and the ad hominem attack...

I have also noticed that people like creationists and GW denialists love to throw out the word "strawman." Where have I presented a strawman argument? I have merely refuted everything you have said with counter arguments. I might have misunderstood your thesis statement (we'll see), but I have not constructed a weak counter-argument for the purpose of tearing it down.
Many of you also confuse ad hominem arguments with simply mocking. Had I said you were incorrect because you are a crackpot (which I have never said), that would be ad hominem.
I mocked you not because you were merely mistaken, but because of the smugness with which you announced your flawed conviction.
thefurlong
2.8 / 5 (20) Oct 11, 2013

Yes, the pattern here is typical of GW alarmists. You raise these paper edifices of cherry picking, anecdotes, inchoate understandings, and lies, and you hide behind them, ignoring the fact that they are still just flimsy paper, and ignoring the glaring reality right outside your doors.

Also, that would have been more effective, had I cherry picked, presented anecdotes, been corrected on my claims, or lied.
michael_craig_562329
1 / 5 (15) Oct 11, 2013
Also, that would have been more effective, had I cherry picked, presented anecdotes, been corrected on my claims, or lied.

I have no doubt you believe that.

The funny thing is, you don't even know my position on AGW nor what I think should be done about it. You just see an opponent and go into your activist attack mode. It's really not effective by the way.

We're probably not that far apart on this issue (as you have assumed) yet I detect a definite difference in the zealot level of conversing.
thefurlong
2.9 / 5 (19) Oct 11, 2013
I have no doubt you believe that.

Yet, you still have not told me why I am wrong in doing so.
The funny thing is, you don't even know my position on AGW nor what I think should be done about it. You just see an opponent and go into your activist attack mode. It's really not effective by the way.

If I am incorrect about what you believe, then correct me. I'm an adult. It sucks that you had a bad childhood, but flippantly referring to people doing their job by warning about an impending cataclysm they have detected objectively as "priests" does not indicate that you have thought clearly about this. Change my mind. I am prepared to eat crow if necessary.
yet I detect a definite difference in the zealot level of conversing.

Damn straight!
Moebius
2.4 / 5 (18) Oct 12, 2013
First comes ignorance, then comes denial, after that acceptance, hand wringing, a scramble for a solution and finally the realization that it's too late to fix the problem.

This is the blueprint for what will eventually kill us, I'm not saying climate change is it but it has the potential because we are still in the denial stage.

Even the acceptance stage could last a long time with no action, that's our nature. The deniers will bear most of the blame because they will dominate, denial will only go away when the effects are so bad everyone realizes the truth and by then it may be already too late.
djr
5 / 5 (9) Oct 12, 2013
Moebius - perhaps you are right. One mistake I make is getting depressed, and thinking that the comments section of Physorg represents any reality. Understand that China is set to implement carbon pricing - http://phys.org/n...ing.html Australia is shutting down 3 gigawatts of fossil fuel plants http://cleantechn...-victim/ Saudi Arabia is spending $200 billion on solar and nuclear projects - http://www.yourmi...ia_12825 Our world is changing fast under our feet. It seems that the comments section of Physorg has been hijacked by the wing nuts - and we can think that they actually have a voice. They are in reality in the minority - and reality is leaving them behind. Is it too late? I am optimistic overall - spending too much time reading Nik's comments can threaten that - so we have to be careful.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2013
"the comments section of Physorg has been hijacked by the wing nuts" - dir

The Tea-Tards are going to receive another crushing defeat in the 2014 elections.

They they will form their own failed party of whiners and wankers.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2013
"Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature." - Ben Santer

Global Average temperatures have increased by almost .1'C over the last 17 years.

http://www.woodfo...to/trend
VendicarE
5 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2013
"The latest IPCC report reveals not ONE of their models can even account for the lack of temperature increase that all of their models predicted." - dleTard

The models dieTard is referring to, are of course, specifically designed to (NOT) produce weather forecasts, which is what he is demanding.

Model results are the average conditions taken over multiple runs that are initialized with differing initial conditions and assumptions.

The results are then averaged to produce the model output. The distribution of the results produces a statistical envelope which determines how closely the real climate is expected to follow the projected curve.

So far, the measured climate is close enough to the average computed trend that the difference remains statistically probable.

That may change over the next 10 to 15 years, in which case it will be concluded that the models have some factor significantly wrong. There is speculation that the models have the ocean subsurface mixing rates CONT.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2013
cont,...

subsurface mixing rates underestimated.

What dleTard is demanding however is specifically what the models are designed to suppress.

If he is ignorant of that fact than he is ignorant of modeling works, and ignorant of basic statistics, yet he feels that he knows enough to venture a public opinion.

That is why he is a Retard.
VendicarE
4.9 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2013
"There is no proof of anthropomorphic global warming." - dleTard

There is no scientific proof that the earth isn't flat.

Proof exists only in abstract mathematics and in no other field of human endeavor.

You did know that didn't you, Retard?

If you did then why are you demanding something that you know can't be provided?

If you didn't then you don't know enough to demand anything.

Either way, you are a Retard.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (7) Oct 12, 2013
"That isn't how science works. Prove your global warming theories " - dleTard

From your demand that science produce proof, it is very clear that YOU don't have a clue as to how science works, so spare us your whining nonsense about "this isn't how science works".

It (IS) how science works, Retard boy.

Now go clean your soiled diaper, your ignorant stench offends me.
Water_Prophet
1 / 5 (16) Oct 12, 2013
It occurs to this prophet, though it is not in the scriptures, that climate has changed drastically since the late '80s and has not reverted.
I will allow this is from personal observations, but is there anyone else who has noticed a profound change since then?
-and it has not gone back again?
NeutronicallyRepulsive
1 / 5 (15) Oct 13, 2013
The GW is real, but I don't believe the effects will be as negative. I think there's a lobby that pushes fear to reach for money. I'm not talking about scientists, but environmental organizations that are fear-mongering. I think they also believe it as a kind of religion, that claims that apocalypse is always just ahead: "Fear of damnation, and give us money!" The old trick. When there's no apocalypse and only slight change (without many implications). They move the dates, and try to collect money again. I think people, and life will adapt to this change, and we'll be fine.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (5) Oct 13, 2013
"I don't believe the effects will be as negative" - Repulsive

Biology has evolved to optimally survive the current temperature regime.

Any movement of the regime from the current state will reduce the biological productive capacity of the biosphere until a new equilibrium is reached through thousands of years of evolution.

Therefore the change is necessarily negative.
NeutronicallyRepulsive
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 13, 2013
"Biology has evolved to optimally survive the current temperature regime.

Any movement of the regime from the current state will reduce the biological productive capacity of the biosphere until a new equilibrium is reached through thousands of years of evolution."

Nature survived many changes, and it will survive these as well. In one shape or another. You're making it into a balanced equilibrium of few tenth of degrees. While studies are coming out that nature might be sturdier than we thought, and many animals/vegetation have adaptations to unexpected situations and also behavior we didn't know about until triggered.
NeutronicallyRepulsive
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 13, 2013
Wow, suddenly the sock-puppet VendicarH voted me down on everything in the past as well. Well done. Debate is over Vendicar, you obviously are not mature enough.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2013
I have received reports of someone with an account named VendicarH using a robot to vote down accounts.

I am not associated with that account.

VendicarE
5 / 5 (6) Oct 13, 2013
"Nature survived many changes" - Repulsive

Yes, most species will become extinct, but over the next million or so years, the survivors will evolve into new species that are optimal for the desert like surface that will result if Man continues to emit vast quantities of CO2.

I consider that a negative development.