I stand corrected...
When studying global warming in depth, one has to make allowances for uncertainty, fluctuations and elasticity. One has to always question whether one is right or wrong...
On the other side of the ledger, the denialists don't have much to do to stir the possum — "they are right" they say with unshakeable belief and this is all there is to it: "Global warming is crap", "it's not happening" or "it's not due to humans burning fossil fuel"... Piece of cake, because it's easy to promote these concepts without having to show any proofs — though these idiots sometimes present carefully picked slanted argument to demonstrate they know a bit of something...
Overall, the denialists' pseudo-scientific arguments and analysis NEVER stack up against proper scientific scrutiny. But the damage is done.
They have achieve the mission: disrupt proper science... For all will know, science is uncertain in the "certainty" of its own theories, because that's the way science works. This uncertainty demands the questioning of most sciences — especially in the domain of quantum physics, because the whole theory is based on weird contradictions, probabilities, exclusions, superimposition and elements being in two places at once, but the whole lot, including chemistry, works.
The denialists have powerful friends, especially us, because let's face it, we're moronic as far as cutting our usage of fossil fuels... We like carbon. We've been raised on carbon. We're addicted to it — far more than to meth or booze... This is why we need to do something to beat this addiction.
The media, led by the denialist Mr Murdoch — that media baron who swallows as many information channels as he can around the world to turn them into his personal disinformation media outlets — does not want you to understand scientific reality, nor about this precise uncertainty.
And let's face it, apart from Australia having beaten many temperature records last year, we're not frying... and "global warming seems to have decelerated" — a present trend used by sceptics to claim that global warming is now reversing and we can burn all the carbon we want, because it won't change things anymore... and the earth is cooling...
So, in this idiotic denialist spirit, the merde-och Australian pushed a few days ago the singular opinion of a few deliberately ignorant people, including a learned woman who accuses the BoM (Australian Bureau of meteorology) from fiddling with its temperature recording devices in global warming theory's favour...
This my dear friends we must say bollocks to, but then again it takes time to explain to morons that two multiplied by two equals four, as long as you stay within the parameters of ordinary mathematics. There are some mathematics systems such as matrices (and others systems) that, should you switch the first and second factor in this case, 2 and 2), the result will be different... ah forget it, this for another day...
Scientific analysis is not easy though, especially in large systems. And as I have said before, should we be able to recognise global warming from our own senses, we'd be cooked within five years.
In complex systems, fluctuations of factors, compound and elasticity of material, such as air in the atmosphere, "concrete" observable markers will be things like melting of glaciers, rising of oceans, warming of oceans right through to the deep... and variation of water vapour concentrations, up there above.
So we need to scientifically precisely monitor the state of water vapour in the atmosphere around the globe, the atmospheric pressure, the shifting of climatic bands, the jet streams variations, the gaseous mix, and note the variations very carefully — daily, hourly, by the minute. As well we need to monitor temperatures along all gradients of the atmosphere to about 20,000 metres up, in as many locations as possible and keep a close eye on the acidification of the oceans... and the behaviour of plants. The earlier flowering of plants tell us that "climate is changing" on a big scale.
Moving a temperature measuring box in Bourke is not going to change the overall result of millions other precise instruments observations that much, if allowance are made for corrections — which are thus made by the BoM for the Bourke box. There are definite environmental status for the "boxes" and these need to be respected. But some changes in the surroundings, like the construction of a building nearby, can affect the results. For example I know that the shade in my backyard is often two degrees warmer that the shady side of the house, when the sun is shinning, but not all the time. This difference also depends on the wind and the season...
Monitoring planet earth in my back-yard is simple, but it's a massive task on a global scale, despite this planet being a little speck of dust in a large expanding universe...
The counter-argument here is always about cash: the massive profits than the carbon industry still wants to make beyond tomorrow as the planet heats up... Planet earth actually is now planet Cash. Cash rules. Money rules. Economic values, whatever they are, rule well above all else. Bugger nature... and bugger sciences and mathematics as well, apart from counting cash in scrooges' coffers and use science to make useless gadgets for profit.
Money is what humans have decided for now and the future. The dorks in Canberra are true to form on this very limited view. Cash rules their affairs and the more cash one has, the more one is deemed "successful". All the rest is viewed as entertaining gap-filler or as simply failure... and zoos can take care of the wildlife...
Our modern societies are built around money, not around the value of stupid orang utans swinging from useless tree to useless tree... Palm trees are profitable. Understanding and protecting natural processes is a huge hindrance to making cash. Making cash in itself is hard work, so why make it harder by being considerate about nature, which god gave us to plunder? It's in the bible, isn't it? Yes. Greed rules. And we're all in it... Even the bludgers are not immune to this mentality. Most moves we make destroy nature even if we sit at a desk crunching numbers.
Thus I stand corrected... I consume too much carbon despite trying hard to be "extra carbon neutral". So what are we to do? What am I going to do? I am looking for guidance, but will get none, zero, nada, nothing, niet from the stupid Abbott regime. All I get is hypocritical crap and dangerous ideas that are more dangerous than those at the festival of dangerous ideas, in Sydney. Abbott and his giant gnomes are dangerous idiots of the first kind. They do not understand science, because they DON'T WANT TO — but, place a bible in front of then, and their half-wit brain goes into raptures... The sad case here is that THEY DO NOT even read or understand the bible. Like science they only pick the bits that suit the narrow focus of their tight arse. By all account, the bible is full of contradictions, sanctified bigamy, approved prostitution and authorised gratuitous violence. But for them, the neo-fascist conservatives, they only pick the roses in a fabulous book, full of nasty triffids.
They are simply wrong. Badly wrong.
But are we right in claiming that global warming is happening?
Yes and YES! Global warming is happening and faster than we are scientifically calculating because we're too cautious. Predicting Armageddon is not what we should do anyway.
Recently, Sydney has been swamped with so much rain, it's likely that the rain record for August will be broken. increasing humidity is a sign of a warming atmosphere and we should know that there are big changes a-coming from the upper atmosphere down... But then, uncertainty might give us the wrong picture. We might get cooked tomorrow. Not quite, but warmer it's getting.
So rather than burning more easy carbon, we need to reduce our carbon footprint fast. FAST ! But there is not much we can do when politics enter the fray...
The warming signs are still there, despite idiotic dicky views from people like Dick Warburton... People like Dick Warburton are "in charge" because they have been "successful with money", despite being very short of scientific understandings.
Money rules... These people have no sense of the future because they are old farts who never understood much apart from cash, money, greed, mula, pesetas, dollaros and tax minimisation. It's a pity. But then what can you do when Turdy Abbott is also as inspired as a ton of loose bricks on the subject of renewables. He has no clue as to why we should pay attention to global warming. Or should he have, he still wants to keep playing marbles with his friends who burn carbon...
Like all elastics, once your stretch something to a particular point, something either snaps or contracts in a jiffy. The elasticity of the climate can only take so much added CO2 while only giving little grief in return. There are points soon at which the "normal" balance of weather will get very upset. Too much humidity and to much heat combining to create downpours and droughts of the century every year in various places on earth until the average temperature of the planet will increment by half a degree overnight...
I am not kidding. I am looking at all the recent observations made by dedicated scientists, serious universities and NASA on this subject and the prognosis is NOT GOOD. It's like having a cold, getting a bit better, so we stop taking our bitter pill then we die of pneumonia or high fever during the next night.
The humidity in the higher atmosphere HAS INCREASED substantially in the past 30 years.
Meanwhile as usual the "denialist dork" is always the first geezer to post something contrary every time someone makes a simple stride forward on the subject of global warming — even a sideway step. For example, the Guardian revisited an old movie made in 1961, "The Day the Earth Caught Fire", to parallel what could happen under the possible conditions of future global warming: Thus from his denialist tower, demagogue8 come blasting with both barrels:
Atmospheric temps have stalled, arctic sea ice is bouncing back, antarctic sea ice is breaking records. Time to bring out stories of doom and "The Day the Earth Caught Fire"
Fortunately, this is followed by two reasonable rebuttals, including one reminding us of the OBSERVABLE conditions, which we tend to forget as our pants are not on fire yet :
Lets check with reality.The earth is losing a trillion tons of ice per year:
- 159 Gt Antarctic LAND ice volume.........McMillan el al, GRL (2014)
+ 26 Gt Antarctic SEA ice volume............Holland et al, J Climate (2014)
- 261 Gt Arctic sea ice................................PIOMAS
- 378 Gt Greenland, Enderlin et al.............GRL (2014)
- 259 Gt other land based glaciers............Gardner et al. Science (2013)
TOTAL ICE LOSS PER YEAR = 1,031 Gt.
Just to be sure...
Care to describe how a loss of > 50% is a "bouncing back"?
Thirteen of the fourteen warmest years on record have all occurred in the 21st century, and each of the last three decades has been warmer than the previous one, culminating with 2001-2010 as the warmest decade on record.
Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system.
I think the world metrological organizations knows what they are talking about.And you cant even say that there has been no warming since 1998, deniers favourite cheery picked year (I cant imagine why).
See the horizontal blue line? That would be a pause but as you can see only a few years since 1998 have been under the threshold.
So you cant even claim a statistical pause.
Not to mention that surface temperatures is only 2,3% of the excess heat, > 90% goes into the oceans because of basic chemistry called specific heat capacity. Water has 800-1200 more heat capacity then air.
So what have the ocean been doing? Oh right heating up.
Or global oceans temperature 0-700m, 0-2000m in data.
Care to explain why >90% of the climate system is still warming and is accelerating?
This is called science supported by data you have feelies.
Data >>> feelies.
One blogger in the comments also mentioned that people manage to live in "hotter climate" than London. Piss of piss. Easy.
Exactly. How do people cope? Well there are ways to cope with more heat.
Last year, Sydney broke its temperature record. The City itself registered 45.8 degrees Celsius. But the inner city suburbs registered more than 46.3. It's HOT! Not as high as say places like Dubai or Death Valley. Still, one has to consider that the humidity was somewhat higher than that of Dubai. This heat, with a certain amount of humidity, becomes highly oppressive. At 46.3 degrees Celsius outside, you stay inside... I do. I do not have air-conditioning but the house stay "cool" (no more than 27 degrees Celsius) should I not open any windows or doors.
In the centre of Victoria, during the 2009 bushfires, the temperature hit records well above 47 degrees Celsius (with winds of more than 100 km/h). Near the fires the ambient temperature was well above 50 degrees Celsius.
In the centre of the continent last year temperatures reached 50 degrees Celsius. The weather people had to add a new notch in their colouring of charts.
People survive such heat mostly in air-conditioned premises.
But we need to consider that not all life-forms (especially plants) on earth are as adaptable as humans.
The "change of climate" under global warming conditions is not just about heat. It's also about snap cold and sudden changes of status in air masses due to the ice, with stronger storms, all with a trend for warmer.
Armageddon, global warming is not.
Global warming changes the dynamics of the atmosphere and of the oceans within similar parameters changes as seen in past Aeons. For example about 120 million years ago, there was no ice on the planet and the sea level was more than 75 metres above that of now. The gaseous mix of the atmosphere was also different to that of now.
Eventually this warm period was followed by cooling. But such changes took tens of thousands of years. Even with these long period of change, many species could not adapt to the new conditions. New species became dominant, others became extinct.
One has to consider that as far as we know THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SINGLE PERIOD in this planet history when a massive lot of the "surface" carbon (including the sequestered carbon) was being made available in the atmosphere SO RAPIDLY than with the human PRESENT USAGE of "fossil fuel" (extraction of sequestered carbon). Thus the elasticity of the system is highly compromised on a fast scale, presently.
We know that the more CO2 in the atmosphere, the warmer the planet's surface is. This of course is a contentious point as to which one comes first: higher temperatures or higher concentrations of CO2. But there is no dispute — even by the slightly scientific aware denialists (it's only the idiots like "demagogue8" who are rabid and ignorant on this point) — that temperatures and CO2 concentration are interlocked (with relative elasticity) as noted in the geological record.
Arrhenius (as well as other scientists, some with other recent experiments) have linked the warming squarely due to higher concentrations of CO2. This fits observations.
By burning fossil fuel, we have overshot the natural maximum of CO2 concentration (300ppm) of the last million years.
Presently the concentration of CO2 is 400 ppm. Some scientists say that beyond a certain level of CO2 (possibly above 500 ppm), things will quickly go haywire though they are confident that we are already in trouble.
We cannot see the full picture yet because a lot of the EXTRA ENERGY added by present global warming is absorbed by the melting of ice and the generally slow warming of the oceans — water being in need of a lot of energy to warm up.
With global warming comes increase humidity in the atmosphere. This can create temporary feedback loops that slow the warming by cloud-cover which eventually becomes clear, due to increase CO2. A sudden burst of warming thus follows. At which point this stabilise again, shoots up again and stabilise is hard to know. But we know that the ice on the planet can and will melt ENTIRELY.
We have to realise that due to the EXTRA release of CO2 by anthropogenic activity, the process is much faster than under ANY natural conditions. So what of the future?
Warmer, wetter, drier and sudden changes of climatic pockets, more violent eddies (high and lows), rising sea level. All these are already in the pipeline. Most of serious climate scientists cannot see how we are going to avoid a rise of 3 degrees Celsius by 2100, while the UN has been trying hard to mitigate CO2 emissions to minimise the rise at 2 degrees Celsius then. The upshot is that now the predicted median point of possible warming is 4 degrees Celsius, the highest is above 6 degrees Celsius.
Such changes won't be "catastrophic" per se, but they will collapse a lot of nature's own reserve of adaptability. Mass extinction will occur. Humans will survive but it could (will) become ugly as resources such as food and water become scarce. Destruction by violent storms will be common place. By 2100, a city like Sydney can expect a few days with temperatures above 49 degrees Celsius. The "inevitable" resultant would be a massive collapse of green belts and decimation of gardens OVERNIGHT when such high temperature hit.
Deserts exist not just through the lack of water but because not many plants can survive in such temperatures. Above 45 degrees Celsius, a lot of plants CANNOT COPE to being exposed to full sunlight. In many tender young plants, such temperature and full sunlight BOILS the water inside the leafs. By 2100, the minimum rise of sea level will be 45 centimetres above present. This will lead to the destruction of many features such as jetties and retaining sea walls, possibly leading to the collapse of old 1960s concrete dwellings near the seashore.
The rise and changes won't stop in 2100. The momentum of global warming will only have barely started. What will follow is for our descendants to decry the fools we were — especially those rich and successful of now who encouraged the burning of carbon. They will be deemed to be murderers...
We are engraving the history of this warming planet by burning carbon. Don't be fooled by the men in power. They are fools living in their own mind, while destroying this planet to sustain the greed of their peers...