Warming ponds could accelerate climate change

This accelerating effect in ponds, which could have serious impacts on climate change, is not currently accounted for in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models.

So am I to presume that we haven't panic'd enough? The AGW models are currently already predicting temp well above what the actual temps are. There could be serious impacts here which are not included. So these models should actually be predicting even higher temps, that would be even farther from reality.

Even the AGW crowd admit the models are incomplete, yet the that doesn't stop the cultists from screaming we need to take radical action now.

"Warming ponds could accelerate climate change"

Or not. No one can predict the future.

Hi JamesG. :)

"Warming ponds could accelerate climate change"

Or not. No one can predict the future.

That's not true, mate. Your brain does it with every step you take and with every post-date decision you make based on the 'balance of probabilities' which your knowledge base has built up in your mind's 'world construct' that you intend 'navigating into the future' from the next step to future years life/property Insurance policies. The Climate Science merely provides that particular knowledge base for making decisions about future costs/benefits of action/non-action choices and the nature/extent of said actions/non-actions. One either consults one's knowledge base or not; that choice is up to you, in this instance regarding balance of probabilities re potential Climate Change causes, problems and solutions. Think well before you reject common sense approach, even in the face of incomplete models which nevertheless TREND towards more warming, not less. Good luck. :)

Hi rodkeh. :)

Just more fear mongering nonsense!

If ever you are caught in the headlights of a speeding truck bearing down on you, I will be sure to NOT say "Watch out, rodkeh, there's a speeding truck coming at you!" to, because in your philosophy I would be "fear mongering" at you. Good luck with that attitude, mate; it's the sort of attitude that may 'eliminate you from the gene pool' sooner rather than later. Watch out! :)

Hi FactsReallyMatter. :)

This accelerating effect in ponds, which could have serious impacts on climate change, is not currently accounted for in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change models.

So am I to presume that we haven't panic'd enough? The AGW models are currently already predicting temp well above what the actual temps are. There could be serious impacts here which are not included. So these models should actually be predicting even higher temps, that would be even farther from reality.

Even the AGW crowd admit the models are incomplete, yet the that doesn't stop the cultists from screaming we need to take radical action now.

Be constructive, not counterproductive in critiques. :)

It's the OBVIOUS TREND that is NOW disturbing/alarming, regardless of models/predictions 'detail'.

PS: I too, long pointed out many things the earlier models missed; but more of the missing pieces are being finally recognized/included. It's the TREND that hurts! :)

"Warming ponds could accelerate climate change"

Or not. No one can predict the future.

JamesG

Obviously false.
Science has correctly predicted the future many times.
Science has correctly predicted when the next eclipse will be many times.
That is proof that someone CAN and already HAS correctly predicted the future (and many times), moron.

It's the OBVIOUS TREND that is NOW disturbing/alarming, regardless of models/predictions 'detail'.

Reacting without understanding is considered knee-jerkism. It is usually not a good way to formulate policy.

Particularly in AGW, as is seen across many posts and articles here, the clear cherry picking of those trends which only support the narrative.
BTW, the RSS data (excluding el nino ) is flat. There is even nothing to kneejerk to.

Particularly in AGW, as is seen across many posts and articles here, the clear cherry picking of those trends which only support the narrative.

I agree, people should avoid cherry picking. Speaking of massive cherry picks:

BTW, the RSS data (excluding el nino ) is flat. There is even nothing to kneejerk to.

Yes, let's throw away the warmer temperatures (el nino) and keep the cooler la nina temperatures - surely there's absolutely no cherry picking there ;).

By the way, wouldn't it be nice if someone were to separately plot out the el nino, la nina, and enso neutral temperatures so people could see the trends in those? Yeah, it's been done: https://skeptical...ing.html . So the trend obviously isn't "flat" anywhere. And the current warming obviously isn't just due to el nino. (By the way, those are Gistemp temperatures, but RSS has the same trend, so going to satellites doesn't help your cherries ;)

El nino is not an AGW inspired event, even the IPCC does not conclude a link between el nino and AGW becuase el ninos are even less understood than the 'global climate'

Thus, whether observed changes in ENSO behaviour are physically linked to global climate change is a research question of great importance.

https://www.ipcc....6-2.html

RSS clearly has a flat trend for nearly 20 years, only interrupted by the last el nino. This was not predicted by the AGW models and the IPCC has been at its wits end to try and explain it away, even using such terms as 'the pause'.

But if it makes you happy, RSS has release the data based on annual values, go ahead and include the el nino.

https://bobtisdal...re-2.png

El nino is not an AGW inspired event

And, of course, no one claimed they were. The point of the graph was that if you look at el nino years, you see the warming trend. And if you get rid of el nino years, you have to get rid of la nina years and the resulting enso neutral years show warming (and the same amount of warming).

RSS clearly has a flat trend for nearly 20 years

Yes, of course, if you cherry pick a short term and look at a period dominated by la nina (or, worse, starting with an el nino if you're really dishonest), you're going to have difficulty seeing the long term climate trend. But el ninos exist, just like la nina, and unless you like to lie to yourself, you need to look at all of the data rather than cherry picking a short period that gives a trend that supports your anti-science narrative.

Please stop with your BS trend answers, it is clear that is only a diversion from the truth.

The models predict on a much shorter period. Their predictions do NOT include the actual last 20 years and it is a real problem for the IPCC. You clearly won't ackknowledge it, but that is irrelevant as the IPCC and all the AGW priests have and they have spent the past years doing all they can to explain it away.

For 20 years it has not been getting warmer and this scares the shit out of the AGW crowd.

For 20 years it has not been getting warmer and this scares the shit out of the AGW crowd.

http://www.woodfo...99/trend

Warming

Please stop with your BS trend answers, it is clear that is only a diversion from the truth.

I see. You can't argue with the data, so you claim it's a "diversion from the truth."

The models predict on a much shorter period. Their predictions do NOT include the actual last 20 years and it is a real problem for the IPCC.

Umm, what? The output from climate models is not intended to be used for near future projections. That's why IPCC projections are for the decade 2090-2099. Maybe in the future they'll be applicable for decadal trends, but certainly not now. As for not including the actual last 20 years, they actually include the historical data from 1900 (https://www.ipcc....-of.html - this is from 2007, so it's a bit old, but I don't think you're worth looking for more up-to-date data). You seem to just make things up to fit your anti-science narrative.

As SteveS pointed out, you've always been wrong about the "not warming for the last 20 years", but I'm beginning to believe you've always know that you were wrong - you just keep lying anyway. I've tired of your anti-science whinings and willful ignorance, so I won't be reading any more of your alternative facts. The real world is enough work without having to deal with someone's alternate reality.

Here's your trend, which I provided above and you missed (based on annual values):

https://bobtisdal...re-2.png

If trends matter, does not that trend matter. Or do we need to include the last El nino for it to fit your narrative. I know you don't like it, but el ninos are linked to AGW, as much as you cultists would like them to be.

Face it, the models haven't predicted the last 20 years, it annoys the hell out of you cause it disturbs your faith. Just pray some more, maybe the doom and gloom will still come.

Here's your trend, which I provided above and you missed (based on annual values):

It shows a clear warming trend over the last 20 years

But don't take my word for it, try it for yourself, here's the data

http://data.remss...03_3.txt

Or do we need to include the last El nino for it to fit your narrative.

Remove the El nino months and we still have a warming trend over the last 20 years.

http://www.cpc.nc...rs.shtml

Face it, you've cherry picked the wrong period, you should have said the last 19 years. That's cherry picking for you, you have to be sure to choose the right cherry.

https://www.resea..._Warming

A Trend that is an order of magnitude below the errors bars in NOT a trend. That is noise, just like every AGW cultist spreads with their misinformation.

just like every AGW cultist spreads with their misinformation

Remember this

For 20 years it has not been getting warmer and this scares the shit out of the AGW crowd.

and this

Here's your trend, which I provided above and you missed

and this

BTW, the RSS data (excluding el nino ) is flat.

order of magnitude below the errors bars

So now that you've acknowledged the warming trend, tell me how are you calculating the "error bars"? As facts really matter to you I'm sure you can show that the trend is more than 10 times lower than the maximum error.

@FactsReallyMatter is just another Dumb-ass denier goon. Look at what he sites as "Facts" to him. Infact I find his claims of intelligence kind of demeaning to anyone with a science background. In other words, a complete BOZO. So from the article,

Lakes and ponds cover about 4% of Earth's surface (excluding areas covered by glaciers and ice sheets) but they are disproportionately large sources of methane and CO2 to the atmosphere. Ponds of less than one square metre are responsible for releasing about 40% of all methane emissions from inland waters.

Lets face it. Mr. @Facts has none.

The period from 1998 to present shows (without error) .02 degrees, or ~.01 degrees/decade. The error bars are much higher. You can google them, maybe learn a little.

https://bobtisdal...re-2.png

Tip : error bars are not chocolate bars. You don't eat them and make them go away.

For 20 years it has not been getting warmer and this scares the shit out of the AGW crowd.

A Trend that is an order of magnitude below the errors bars in NOT a trend. That is noise, just like every AGW cultist spreads with their misinformation.

The period from 1998 to present shows (without error) .02 degrees, or ~.01 degrees/decade. The error bars are much higher. You can google them, maybe learn a little.

The period from 1998 to present is not 20 years. From Jan 1997 to Dec 2016 or Feb 1997 to Jan 2017 if you prefer,(there's very little difference) is 20 years.The trend for the last 20 years is 0.065 k/decade, the trend uncertanty is not 0.65 k/decade.

http://passthroug...inty.pdf

just like every AGW cultist spreads with their misinformation.

Who's spreading the misinformation here?

Facts really DO matter.

The thing about this is, as the permafrost melts it will make a bunch of little ponds. So now we're talking about a big positive feedback.