[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Ohh! A comic! Well, I'm convinced!

How about this then?

$1:

Another problem is that ARGO only began producing proper data in 2004, and there seems to have been no update to its marine atlas since the end of 2014.

Nevertheless, ARGO is the least bad we have. And what the buoys show is that the rate of global ocean warming in those 11 full years of data is equivalent to less than a fortieth of a degree per decade – 0.023 degrees per decade, to be more precise:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/05/h ... odynamics/

So that's either true or it's not.

If it's true, and the ARGO bathythermograph buoys are what a large part of this new claim is based on you're only talking about a rise in temperature of .23 of a degree for this century if the trend they show continues.

Where's this scary rise in rate of increase you were talking about earlier?

It isn't shown by the buoys themselves. You have to go Disney, and imagineer a temperature addition to the buoys to make the climate pause go poof and disappear.

[PluggyRug]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Lemmy Lemmy:

I figured you'd especially like how we blamed the whole damn thing on the Juwes!

Everyone knows the Freemasons were conquered by the Shriners on Oct 4, 1921.

You have to be a Mason before you become a Shriner.

...and go through the York or Scottish rite.

[Zipperfish]

ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Lemmy Lemmy:

I figured you'd especially like how we blamed the whole damn thing on the Juwes!

Everyone knows the Freemasons were conquered by the Shriners on Oct 4, 1921.

You have to be a Mason before you become a Shriner.

What kind of baloney is that? we did a gig for the Shriners on St Patty's. Wonderful bunch of guys. The stuff they do is incredible. Didn't know they were Masons though.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/06/05/h ... odynamics/

So that's either true or it's not.

You could drive a truck through the holes in Monckton's argument. But you've already stated that all the data are fudged anyways so your logical conclusion should be almost what you've stated "It's either true or its not, but I have no way of knowing."

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

You could drive a truck through the holes in Monckton's argument.

A sentence which is far more convincing than a mere comic.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

But you've already stated that all the data are fudged anyways

But I didn't say that. The recorded data is what is.

What happens to that data after it is recorded needs to be questioned. In this case they simply invented an addition of heat to the recent data, artificially cooled the old data, and the motivation appears suspect.

[N_Fiddledog]

You know what else is interesting?

If this new NCDC/NOAA data set is accepted there are going to be 3 diverging groups.

You'll have the straight line of the satellite temps, then the ever-so slight, sloping upward line of traditional land surface temps for the same period.

Then you get the new, improved, NCDC/NOAA, Climateland, fun ride. Up, up and away.

[ShepherdsDog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

What kind of baloney is that? we did a gig for the Shriners on St Patty's. Wonderful bunch of guys. The stuff they do is incredible. Didn't know they were Masons though.

Technically they aren't. But you have to have been a Mason in order to become a Shriner. Both groups do A LOT of charity work.

[andyt]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Show me how 1 degree of warming can melt Greenland or Antarctic ice, for example. You can't. Not even the scientists of the side you favor make the claim it can. I degree of warming per century will not cause a crisis.

Think of a degree of warming in the perspective of weather outside your door. Not much, right? How quick can it happen? Now think of that globally over a century. Still scared?

Not a valid comparison. One degree increase in worldwide average is not the same as one degree temperature change locally. And the change isn't the problem, the rate of accelerating change is. Next century it won't be one degree, it could be 2 to 4. Then who knows the century after that.

Too fast for life to adapt to that change.

Seems to me trying to predict climate to the next century is a bit over the top. I doubt we'll be spewing as much carbon as we do now, hell we may have run out of critical resources and had a major die back.

I thought the danger point was 2 degrees warming. If the prediction really is just 1 deg over this century, then I think we're not doing too bad, not as much of a worry. Certainly not worth totally screwing up our economy over. Still, there are other good reasons to stop spewing carbon, from air pollution from coal, to the hazards of extracting and shipping gas and oil, to societal problems from dependency on the automobile and so on.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Show me how 1 degree of warming can melt Greenland or Antarctic ice, for example. You can't. Not even the scientists of the side you favor make the claim it can. I degree of warming per century will not cause a crisis.

Think of a degree of warming in the perspective of weather outside your door. Not much, right? How quick can it happen? Now think of that globally over a century. Still scared?

Not a valid comparison. One degree increase in worldwide average is not the same as one degree temperature change locally. And the change isn't the problem, the rate of accelerating change is. Next century it won't be one degree, it could be 2 to 4. Then who knows the century after that.

Too fast for life to adapt to that change.

Seems to me trying to predict climate to the next century is a bit over the top. I doubt we'll be spewing as much carbon as we do now, hell we may have run out of critical resources and had a major die back.

Predicting climate may prove easier than predicting weather. Chaotic systems like economics or the motion of a flock of birds can be predicted, if we know the variables. That's what we are still learning.

andyt andyt:

I thought the danger point was 2 degrees warming. If the prediction really is just 1 deg over this century, then I think we're not doing too bad, not as much of a worry.

1 degree is a huge amount of extra energy to be trapped in our atmosphere. I read somewhere that if we took all our nuclear weapons and detonated them, the heat would raise the Gulf of Mexico by half a degree. Now, imagine 1 degree across the whole planet.

andyt andyt:

Certainly not worth totally screwing up our economy over. Still, there are other good reasons to stop spewing carbon, from air pollution from coal, to the hazards of extracting and shipping gas and oil, to societal problems from dependency on the automobile and so on.

It always comes to that, eh? No one wants to do anything because 'the economy'. I'm glad that for the first time this year, carbon output diverged from economic output. That shows us that we can affect CO2 emissions and not affect the economy. So that excuse is officially dead.

[andyt]

Screwing up the economy means acting too quickly because of panic. Our economy can adjust if we move gradually, not all in a panic.

As for for predicting chaotic systems like the economy: In your dreams.

[DrCaleb]

A guy has to have dreams!