"Most Caribbean coral reefs may disappear in the next 20 years"

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

Always be wary when people pull "facts" out of their backsides without providing references.

NOAA Climatic Data Center

17 years and 10 months with no warming (reference on image.)

Much concern in the community about the pause.

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by avb3

That's not quiet correct.

There has been a Slow Down in the growth of warming, but it still is warming.

That's like saying just because your slowing down from 60 mph to 40 mph means your no longer advancing towards a destination. You slowed down, you did not go into reverse.

To make your car and speed analogy correct, you would have to add to the fact that you are steppinig on the Gass AND still slowing down. Remember Evil CO2 has increased (the Gas) while the car slowed from 60 to 40...which the computer models don't predict, explain, or account for.

As a scientist myself, I hate to see the beating the field of "Science" will take once this MMGW myth is busted...never again will people believe the Boy who Cried Wolf is something for Real happens.

[Pete7]

So, now that has been settled back to the Caribbean Coral, what is the solution there? or do we just accept that the sea is surrounded by poor countries whose people eat fish to survive.

Sure educating US Padi divers is one idea and I have seen it in action elsewhere like the South China Sea following the coral bleaching in the late 90s but its just scratching at the surface.

Could all the countries in and around the Caribbean work together? I doubt it.

Pete

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

17 years and 10 months with no warming (reference on image.)

Much concern in the community about the pause.

Although you didn't bother to give a reference for where you got this chart, it appears to have come from the WattsUpWithThis website.

Global Temperature Update – Still no global warming for 17 years 10 months

This is a major website for AGW skeptics. For a number of years they've been pointing out temperature data concerning the troposphere (the lower part of the atmosphere) that they claim refutes global warming. The data set they've constructed their graph from may have come from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) website here.

http://data.remss.com/msu/monthly_ti...cean_v03_3.txt

Measuring temperatures in the atmosphere is rather complicated and indirect. I don't pretend to understand it. Two scientists, John Christy and Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama published a series of papers starting about 1990 that implied the troposphere was warming at a much slower rate than the surface temperature record and climate models indicated. One early version of their data even showed a cooling trend. Subsequently other atmospheric scientists starting looking into the discrepancies that Christy and Spencer thought they had found. After everything was sorted out the main body of scientists felt they had resolved the issues, while Spencer and Christy continue to believe problems still exist with the AGW model.

As best I can tell, the RSS researchers themselves believe their data shows tropospheric temperatures are rising, though not as fast as some models suggested it would. See:

Climate Analysis | Remote Sensing Systems

Upper Air Temperature | Remote Sensing Systems

You can read a history and explanation of the disagreements here, from the point of view of AGW proponents (which is most everyone in the field):

Basic Explanation
Intermediate Explanation
Advanced Explanation

[SV THIRD DAY]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

Although you didn't bother to give a reference for where you got this chart, it appears to have come from the WattsUpWithThis website.

Not sure what you mean by that....heck...you juct click on the image and it takes you to the site, so it wasn't as if he was trying to hide his source from you..

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

You can read a history and explanation of the disagreements here, from the point of view of AGW proponents (which is most everyone in the field)

Science isn't about Consensus it's about facts. So when I see this "everyone in the field" type of argument in defense of MMGW it makes me laugh a bit remembering that "everyone in the field" once thought that time was a physical constant, which we now know to not be the case.


Reading the arguments of AGW Proponents is more valid than skeptics...just why? Because there are more of them? Because they get Billions in Grant money to be AGW proponents? In a world where scientists are black listed, kicked out of their jobs, and attacked for not being AGW Proponents, can you help me understand where their "science" ends and peer popularity begins?

[Andrew B.]

From the Daily Caller:“Report: Farmers’Almanac More Accurate Than Government Climate Scientists.”

Why am I not surprised.

"In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is—if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong." - Richard Feynman
It will literately be a cold day in hell before the true believers admit that their 'guesses' have been wrong.


"Would you bet your paycheck on the weather forecast for tomorrow? If not, then why should this country (US) bet billions on global warming predictions that have even less foundation?"-Dr. Tim Ball

I have a big empty jar that needs to be put to use. I am going to bet $1 every day that the local weather forecast is not accurate. I will add $1 when I win, and take one out when the prediction is accurate. My 'guess' is that I will add more to the jar over the period of a year, than I take out if I lose. And have the integrity to report the result accurately !

After reading the entire article in WUWT by Dr. Ball I am going to start purchasing the Farmers Almanac again.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by ImaginaryNumber

Although you didn't bother to give a reference for where you got this chart, it appears to have come from the WattsUpWithThis website.

My message on the "one sentence" post clearly said reference was on the image! Reading comprehension is a good start to a fundamental understanding of science.

[LakeSuperior]

It's pretty well settled science that there is a significant hiatus in warming. This hiatus is in spite of the fact that CO2 levels continue to rise.

All of the models have estimated a continued rise in temperature which has not been realized.

The IPCC has revised their earlier estimates of the warming rate to be significantly lower in the latest report.

Consider that the Vikings lived and farmed on Greenland for 500 years before cold weather made it too difficult to make a living. That's a little over 230 years longer than we have been the United States. This warm period was not correlated to elevated levels of CO2.

If someone has all the answers bring them on!!

[a64pilot]

OK, I have an answer.

I'll be dead long before it matters to me, it will be my Grandchildren's problem at least, and I can't solve it. So I'll continue to do what I can to curb my emissions be kind to the reef etc., and go on with my life

[zboss]

There is nothing wrong with the planet... Only our version of the planet. Nature does what it does... Adapt and change.

20 years from now I'll be dead and burned to ash in a hot oven and what happens to the earth after that is completely inconsequential.


Sent from somewhere other than where I want to be!

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by Andrew B.

I have a big empty jar that needs to be put to use. I am going to bet $1 every day that the local weather forecast is not accurate. I will add $1 when I win, and take one out when the prediction is accurate. My 'guess' is that I will add more to the jar over the period of a year, than I take out if I lose. And have the integrity to report the result accurately !

My guess is that you will end up with zero. If the forecast is right or...wrong more than 50% then there is actionable information transfer and you can plan a picnic accordingly. At 50% there is no way to plan whether to have the picnic indoors or outdoors.

[Andrew B.]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

My guess is that you will end up with zero. If the forecast is right or...wrong more than 50% then there is actionable information transfer and you can plan a picnic accordingly. At 50% there is no way to plan whether to have the picnic indoors or outdoors.

I am looking forward to seeing how it does go. We have a local TV weatherman that touts a 3 degree guarantee. Don't know how often he hits it though.

I am using a stop cussing jar, and should soon have enough $ to buy a real nice boat...

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Science isn't about Consensus it's about facts. So when I see this "everyone in the field" type of argument in defense of MMGW it makes me laugh a bit remembering that "everyone in the field" once thought that time was a physical constant, which we now know to not be the case.
Reading the arguments of AGW Proponents is more valid than skeptics...just why? Because there are more of them? Because they get Billions in Grant money to be AGW proponents? In a world where scientists are black listed, kicked out of their jobs, and attacked for not being AGW Proponents, can you help me understand where their "science" ends and peer popularity begins?

All scientific consensus is based on evidence and data. And this evidence isn’t accumulated by using Google, but is actually formed by experts, who are substantially more knowledgeable than most of us in particular fields. The Scientific Consensus represents the position generally agreed upon, at a given time, by most scientists specialized in a given field.

It means that ideas have been tested and retested, points have been raised and refuted, and faulty hypotheses have been abandoned.
It means that the data is now clear enough that experts (people who may not necessarily like or want to agree with each other) can look at it, and interpret it in the same way.
It is not a popularity contest; it means that the sheer weight of the compelling evidence has narrowed the avenues of research to areas that continue to make sense.

Scientific Consensus does NOT mean that:
- All scientist are unanimous: disagreements may occur, and can be necessary for science to progress,
- The position is definitive: the consensus can evolve with the results from further research and contrary opinions.

Therefore, Scientific Consensus is NOT a synonym of "Certain Truth".

For anyone trying to take a scientific approach to knowledge about the world, we must rely heavily upon experts, or those who are more knowledgeable than we are. There is no choice. There is simply too much specialized scientific knowledge for anyone to be an expert in everything, or even a significant portion of scientific disciplines.

Further, being an educated layperson is usually not enough to form your own opinions on specific scientific questions. Forming a reliable opinion often requires a level of detailed knowledge that only an expert in the field can obtain. Even experts can be wrong, of course, and since lay opinions are likely to span all possibilities, some are bound to be correct. Experts, however, are far more likely to have an opinion that accurately reflects the evidence and to understand how to incorporate new evidence as it comes in.

When the scientific expertise to judge a scientific position, to a certainty, is lacking, I believe that the best choice is to rely on the Consensus.

[ImaginaryNumber]

Originally Posted by LakeSuperior

...Consider that the Vikings lived and farmed on Greenland for 500 years before cold weather made it too difficult to make a living. That's a little over 230 years longer than we have been the United States. This warm period was not correlated to elevated levels of CO2.

If someone has all the answers bring them on!!

Plenty of answers for those willing to look for them.

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current global temperatures? | SKEPTICAL SCIENCE

The skeptic argument...
Medieval Warm Period was warmer
The Medieval Warm Period was warmer than current conditions. This means recent warming is not unusual and hence must be natural, not man-made.

What the science says...
While the Medieval Warm Period saw unusually warm temperatures in some regions, globally the planet was cooler than current conditions.

The Medieval Warm Period spanned 950 to 1250 AD and corresponded with warmer temperatures in certain regions. During this time, ice-free seas allowed the Vikings to colonize Greenland. North America experienced prolonged droughts. Just how hot was the Medieval Warm Period? Was the globe warmer than now? To answer this question, one needs to look beyond warming in a few regions and view temperatures on a global scale.

Prior temperature reconstructions tend to focus on the global average (or sometimes hemispheric average). To answer the question of the Medieval Warm Period, more than 1000 tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment and other assorted proxy records spanning both hemispheres were used to construct a global map of temperature change over the past 1500 years (Mann 2009). The Medieval Warm Period saw warm conditions over a large part of the North Atlantic, Southern Greenland, the Eurasian Arctic, and parts of North America. In these regions, temperature appears to be warmer than the 1961–1990 baseline. In some areas, temperatures were even as warm as today. However, certain regions such as central Eurasia, northwestern North America, and the tropical Pacific are substantially cooler compared to the 1961 to 1990 average.


Figure 1: Reconstructed surface temperature anomaly for Medieval Warm Period (950 to 1250 A.D.), relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period. Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable.

How does the Medieval Warm Period compare to current conditions? Here is the temperature pattern for the last decade (1999 to 2008). What we see is widespread warming (with a few exceptions such as regional East Antarctic cooling)


Figure 3: Surface temperature anomaly for period 1999 to 2008, relative to the 1961– 1990 reference period. Gray areas indicates regions where adequate temperature data are unavailable (NOAA).

The Medieval Warm Period was not a global phenomenon. Warmer conditions were concentrated in certain regions. Some regions were even colder than during the Little Ice Age. To claim the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today is to narrowly focus on a few regions that showed unusual warmth. However, when we look at the broader picture, we see that the Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon with other regions showing strong cooling. What is more, and as can be seen in Figure 4, globally, temperatures during the Medieval Period were less than today.


Figure 4: Global surface temperature reconstruction from Mann et al. (2008)

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by GordMay

All scientific consensus is based on evidence and data. And this evidence isn’t accumulated by using Google, but is actually formed by experts, who are substantially more knowledgeable than most of us in particular fields.

It means that ideas have been tested and retested, points have been raised and refuted, and faulty hypotheses have been abandoned.
It means that the data is now clear enough that experts (people who may not necessarily like or want to agree with each other) can look at it, and interpret it in the same way.
It is not a popularity contest; it means that the sheer weight of the compelling evidence has narrowed the avenues of research to areas that continue to make sense.

For anyone trying to take a scientific approach to knowledge about the world, we must rely heavily upon experts, or those who are more knowledgeable than we are. There is no choice. There is simply too much specialized scientific knowledge for anyone to be an expert in everything, or even a significant portion of scientific disciplines.

Further, being an educated layperson is usually not enough to form your own opinions on specific scientific questions. Forming a reliable opinion often requires a level of detailed knowledge that only an expert in the field can obtain. Even experts can be wrong, of course, and since lay opinions are likely to span all possibilities, some are bound to be correct. Experts, however, are far more likely to have an opinion that accurately reflects the evidence and to understand how to incorporate new evidence as it comes in.

When the scientific expertise to judge a scientific position, to a certainty, is lacking, I believe that the best choice is to rely on the Consensus.

Gord, you raise an interesting point. What you are saying is that a few experts form a consensus and the teeming masses then rely on the scientists consensus opinion to make decisions regarding the future of mankind. These decisions are made based on incomplete information but masses do the best they can with the information they have from the consensus guys. This is how the world tends to presently work.

In the 16th century Galileo's observations put the sun at the center of the solar system. The consensus at the time was that the universe revolved around earth because the astronomers could not observe parallax effects in the stars. Fortunately, which way it went didn't really matter to the common man.

There has been significant warm periods in the past without the benefit of elevated CO2 levels. The medieval warming period, Vikings farming on Greenland for 500 years for example. There is sufficient evidence that these temperatures were suppressed by the data processing to strengthen the AGW arguments.

Getting to the main point, I think that many people believe we are destroying the planet with pollution and excess consumption. Consequently, the AGW argument is a perfect excuse for legislating a green agenda regardless of the facts and uncertainties of AGW.

In other words, AGW may or may not be happening but many are going to go with it anyway in order to serve an agenda. Until the AGW theories and consensus opinions the conservationist had zero leverage to accomplish their green goals.