Environment & Energy

joshcryer

(62,536 posts)

39. No, it doesn't. It's like having 190,000 1GW nuclear power plants.

Thu Feb 9, 2012, 02:45 AM

Feb 2012

Running that entire time, producing only waste heat in the ocean.

My contention is that the Y scaling here is fine. To have a Y scaling that hides the divergence, you'd have to chose some arbitrary number that has no connection to anything.

Scale it based upon Earth EJ absorbed, land+atmosphere+ice become a very flat line:

The scaling is fine.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

82 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Lying With Charts, Global Warming Edition [View all] xchrom Jan 2012 OP

Here's another look at the switcheroo. immoderate Jan 2012 #1

+1 xchrom Jan 2012 #2

Steps are dangerous. Don't trip on the steps. Viking12 Jan 2012 #3

Excellent! Bookmarked. Thanks. Jim__ Jan 2012 #5

That bad boy is going on the sticky, next edit. Dead_Parrot Jan 2012 #6

Good. It will be happy there. immoderate Jan 2012 #7

Some links would be useful, I think.. Dead_Parrot Jan 2012 #8

There is another dishonesty in the top extracted graph. tabatha Jan 2012 #4

Both graphs are derived from annual temperature anomolies Viking12 Jan 2012 #9

She means the trend line is skewed Dead_Parrot Jan 2012 #10

Huh? It's not at all clear that's what she meant... Viking12 Jan 2012 #11

Good point about cherry picking the start point Viking12. The Croquist Feb 2012 #13

Because all the satellite data prior to then shows no warming? XemaSab Feb 2012 #35

The reverse guardian Jan 2012 #12

"Global Warming Has Stopped"? How to Fool People Using "Cherry-Picked" Climate Data OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #14

Yes, the warming is unmistakable Nederland Feb 2012 #15

Riddle me this: why, then, is the arctic ice in severe decline, as is shown in this graph? XemaSab Feb 2012 #16

When temperatures rise, ice melts Nederland Feb 2012 #24

When ice melts... albedo changes. joshcryer Feb 2012 #27

It certainly does Nederland Feb 2012 #33

"Not that much" doesn't account for many variables. joshcryer Feb 2012 #37

Do you have a point? Nederland Feb 2012 #44

So we should just hang out and wait to see XemaSab Feb 2012 #47

You have not indicated how much warming you believe we will see over the next 100 years. joshcryer Feb 2012 #48

I am a firm believer that this is happening and it's gonna be hardcore when it really hits XemaSab Feb 2012 #51

So why is the temperature rising? XemaSab Feb 2012 #28

Increasing CO2 for one Nederland Feb 2012 #34

"Not a whole lot" - you're sure about that, are you? GliderGuider Feb 2012 #17

Yup Nederland Feb 2012 #18

Well, thank goodness we can stop worrying about this then. GliderGuider Feb 2012 #19

Tell James Hansen yourself Nederland Feb 2012 #23

Inflection points and non-linear responses are common discussion topics in climate change circles. GliderGuider Feb 2012 #26

You used the word "unpredictable" GG Nederland Feb 2012 #31

I used it in relation to particular behviours of the system, not the system overall. GliderGuider Feb 2012 #40

Then please tell me what aspects are predictable Nederland Feb 2012 #50

That's odd. You complain when I say the changes are unpredictable GliderGuider Feb 2012 #53

I agree with your summary Nederland Feb 2012 #56

You're right. The Y-axis on the graph I linked is all screwy XemaSab Feb 2012 #20

The scale of the y axis is massive here. joshcryer Feb 2012 #29

Massive compared to what? Nederland Feb 2012 #32

That's a 6% increase. joshcryer Feb 2012 #36

Spread out over how many years? Almost 50? Nederland Feb 2012 #38

No, it doesn't. It's like having 190,000 1GW nuclear power plants. joshcryer Feb 2012 #39

Stop using irrelevant comparisons Nederland Feb 2012 #42

Hmmm� I believe you misunderstand� OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #43

And how does that fact Nederland Feb 2012 #45

It�s reasonably straightforward OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #52

If it is reasonably straightforward... Nederland Feb 2012 #57

People have been creating climate models for years OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #60

Yes, models are getting better Nederland Feb 2012 #65

Are you familiar with any models that call for rapid cooling? OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #80

The term "massive" is subjective. Obviously I can only make a persuasive argument. joshcryer Feb 2012 #49

Persuasive arguments usually don't involve subjective terminology. Nederland Feb 2012 #66

I provided an objective graph. joshcryer Feb 2012 #67

The trend is also unmistakable OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #21

Exponential Growth? Nederland Feb 2012 #22

The trend lines certainly predict exponential XemaSab Feb 2012 #25

I said nothing about ice melt (nt) Nederland Feb 2012 #30

Clearly, temperatures cannot increase exponentially forever OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #41

The IPCC does not agree with you Nederland Feb 2012 #46

Sadly, the IPCC report was too optimistic OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #54

You raise an interesting point Nederland Feb 2012 #55

Document that claim kristopher Feb 2012 #58

I�d be interested to see that documented as well OKIsItJustMe Feb 2012 #59

Here you go Nederland Feb 2012 #61

Here is an example sourced from RealClimate Nederland Feb 2012 #62

So the 1988 models are shitty XemaSab Feb 2012 #63

What will it take? Nederland Feb 2012 #64

Let's see. How about I'll say "We're jumping the gun on this hysteria" XemaSab Feb 2012 #70

A simple question Nederland Feb 2012 #75

I think it's both XemaSab Feb 2012 #77

And yet, it's still well within the AR4 range. joshcryer Feb 2012 #68

Actually it is not Nederland Feb 2012 #72

Given the uncertainties in modeling I think it's fairer to go with the spread. joshcryer Feb 2012 #73

Yes warming has happened Nederland Feb 2012 #74

And, if that happens, instead of saying "improve the models"... joshcryer Feb 2012 #78

Did you ask Gavin why he picked #1? GliderGuider Feb 2012 #76

Good point, I should ask him Nederland Feb 2012 #79

He answers emails, he's quite friendly. joshcryer Feb 2012 #81

I posted the question in the blog comments Nederland Feb 2012 #82

How about a link to the discussion you are referencing? kristopher Feb 2012 #69

It's the latest post on RealClimate, they've done this every year... joshcryer Feb 2012 #71