Don't hold your breath. There hasn't been one in at least the past 120 million years, and there isn't one expected in the next 100 million years.JimC wrote:With continental drift, there may well have been a land mass there...Hermit wrote:Cute, but palm trees on the north pole? Isn't that spot covered by water even now?macdoc wrote:hehe
Some pointed perspective
because you say so??!!!!Macdoc, but anyone who can actually read a graph will see that it's ALREADY wrong, at the bottom end.
The actual temperatures have been flat for the last seventeen years, while CO2 levels are still shooting up.
That's 7 fucking years ago.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/rahmsto ... -2012.html
Rahmstorf et al. Validate IPCC Temperature Projections,
Posted on 29 November 2012 by dana1981
A new paper in Environmental Research Letters by Rahmstorf, Foster, and Cazenave (RFC12) takes a very interesting approach in testing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) global warming projections, and also examines its sea level rise projections. Consistent with the previous analyses at Skeptical Science, RFC12 finds that the climate models used in the IPCC 2001 Third Assessment Report (TAR) and 2007 Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) predicted the ensuing global surface warming to a high degree of accuracy, while their central sea level rise predictions were too low by about 60%.
Novel Approach to Testing Temperature Projections
One of the principle difficulties in testing relatively recent temperature projections is that there are a lot of short-term influences on global surface temperatures that introduce noise into the data. For example, there are oceanic cycles like the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO, comprised of El Niño and La Niña events), an 11-year solar cycle, and particulates released during volcanic eruptions which cause short-term cooling by blocking sunlight. Many of these short-term influences are very difficult to predict ahead of time, and when averaging many model runs together as the IPCC does, these short-term unpredictable effects on temperature tend to average out to zero.
Thus the IPCC multi-model average of simulations do not reflect these short-term temperature influences, which is not a problem for long-term predictions, because positive and negative short-term cycles and noise average out to zero over long timeframes. However, when comparing model projections to observed temperatures over just a decade or two, the short-term noise can play a significant role. RFC12 takes a very clever approach to address this issue, applying the methodology of Foster and Rahmstorf (2011), using the statistical technique of multiple regression to filter out the influences of ENSO and solar and volcanic activity from the global surface temperature data (Figure 1).
before/after filtering
Figure 1: Global surface and lower atmosphere temperature data from 5 data sets (with a 12-month running average) before and after applying the statistical methodology of Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) to remove the influences of ENSO and solar and volcanic activity.
The paper then compares the global surface temperature data (with these three influences both included and removed) to the envelope of climate model temperature projections in both the 2001 and 2007 IPCC reports (Figure 2).
RFC12 Fig 1
Figure 2: Observed annual global temperature, unadjusted (pink) and adjusted for short-term variations due to solar variability, volcanoes and ENSO (red) as in Foster and Rahmstorf (2011). 12-month running averages are shown as well as linear trend lines, and compared to the scenarios of the IPCC (blue range and lines from the 2001 report, green from the 2007 report). Projections are aligned in the graph so that they start (in 1990 and 2000, respectively) on the linear trend line of the (adjusted) observational data.
IPCC Has Accurately Projected Global Surface Warming
As Figure 2 shows, the unadjusted data (pink) have tended to fall towards the lower end of IPCC projections in recent years, primarily due to the preponderance of La Niña events and an extended solar cycle minimum, which have short-term cooling influences on global surface temperatures. However, when these influences are filtered out (red), the observed temperatures fall very close to the central climate model projections, which RFC12 notes are based on greenhouse gas emissions scenarios that accurately reflect the observed CO2 changes over that timeframe.
In short, the global climate models used in the IPCC reports have been very good at predicting the underlying human-caused global surface warming trend, beneath the short-term noise which will average out to zero over time. This suggests that IPCC projections of future global warming, which are based on various possible human greenhouse gas emissions scenarios, are reliable.
macdoc wrote:
macdoc wrote:hehe
Some pointed perspective
Of course I did, how else could you judge the success of a projection? Sometimes the ignorance of your posts amazes me. Even now.macdoc wrote:because you say so??!!!!Macdoc, but anyone who can actually read a graph will see that it's ALREADY wrong, at the bottom end.
The actual temperatures have been flat for the last seventeen years, while CO2 levels are still shooting up.
YOU PUT UP A 2007 GRAPH
J: True, that's why we have adapted and learned to use irrigation. We may need to pump more water from wet areas to dry areas. Adaptation really works well historically.
BPL: No, historically civilizations subject to massive drought collapse. Google the following terms: Mohenjo-Daro. Harappa. Mayan Empire. Anasazi.
CO2 keeps going up as it has the entire time. No pauses.mistermack wrote: SEE POST ABOVE
The orange line is what they forecast if CO2 levels remained at year 2,000 levels. They haven't.
But temperatures are still actually below the 1997 levels, that are shown on the graph.
Way outside their forecasts. Because their forecasts are just wild guesses, dressed up as science.
Oh ?? you thnk continuing to repeat wrong information will make it true??he orange line is what they forecast if CO2 levels remained at year 2,000 levels. They haven't.
But temperatures are still actually below the 1997 levels, that are shown on the graph.
here is very little justification for asserting that global warming
has gone away over the past ten years, not least because the linear
trend in globally-averaged annual mean temperatures (the standard
yardstick) over the period 1998-2007 remains upward. While 1998 was
the world’s warmest year in the surface-based instrumental record up
to that point in time, 2005 was equally warm and in some data sets
surpassed 1998. A substantial contribution to the record warmth of
1998 came from the very strong El Niño of 1997/98 and, when the
annual data are adjusted for this short-term effect (to take out El
Niño’s warming influence), the warming trend is even more obvious.
Because of the year-to-year variations in globally-averaged annual
mean temperatures, about ten years are required for an underlying
trend to emerge from the “noise” of those year-to-year
fluctuations. Hence, the fact that 2006 and 2007 were cooler than
2005, is nowhere near enough data to clearly establish a cooling
trend.
All these statements, and variations on them, have been confidentlyGlobal warming stopped in 1998. Global temperatures have remained
static since then, in spite of increasing concentrations of greenhouse
gasses in the atmosphere. Global temperatures have cooled since
1998. Because 2006 and 2007 were cooler than 2005, a global cooling
trend has established itself.
asserted in the international and Australian media in the past year or
so, but the data do not support them.
http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/read/ ... oardCanadaA Pile of Mammals Smaller Than a Single Canyon Is Dominating the Entire Planet
Written by BRIAN MERCHANT
April 30, 2014 // 06:25 PM CET
If you took every human being on Earth and put them in the Grand Canyon, they wouldn't even begin to fill it up. The seven billion-strong lot of us would make a pretty formidable pile, sure, but we'd get nowhere close to an overflow. At least, not according to this 'species portrait' put together by VSauce and recently shared far and wide across the blogland.
The visualization proved so popular because it turns our working conception of the size and scope of humanity on its head—we are a vast and multiplying species; we blanket the entire planet with our cities and settlements. Jesus Diaz notes that "Even if you took all of humanity across all the ages—an estimated 106 billion—the piles—about 15 of these—wouldn't cover the Grand Canyon. Not even a significant fraction."
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests
