Global warming?

[MCary]

Coldest winter in in America in 7 years.
Coldest winter in Canada in 15 years
Coldest winter in China in 100 years.
Snowpack in northern hemisphere 105-120% of normal.
Record rainfall in midwest.
Artic sea ice increased by 2 million square miles.
Artic sea ice thickening.

Earth's 'Fever' Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way; Report: Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling (Daily Tech â€"œ February 26, 2008;

Forget Global Warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age (Canada's National Post â€"œ Feb. 25, 2008);Arctic Sea Ice Sees 'Significant Increase' in Size Following 'Extreme Cold' (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation -CBC â€"œ February 15, 2008);

Ice between Canada and Greenland reaches highest level in 15 years (Greenland’s Sermitsiak News â€"œ February 12, 2008);NewPeer-Reviewed Study Shows Arctic COOLING Over last 1500 years;

Antarctic Summer Thaw 'Later Than Normal' (AccuWeather Global Warming News â€"œ February 6, 2008;

Report: Sun's 'disturbingly quiet' cycle prompts fear of global COOLING (February 8, 2008 - Investor’s Business Daily);

Solar data suggest our concerns should be about global cooling â€"œ (By Geologist David Archibald of Summa Development Limited in Australia â€"œ March 2008 Scientific Paper);

Report: Too Much Ice = Polar Bears Starving? (Scientist Philip Stott’s Global Warming Politics â€"œ February 15, 2008);Report: Solar Activity Diminishes;

Researchers Predict Another Ice Age - Sunspots have all but vanished in recent years. (Daily Tech â€"œ February 9, 2008);Scientist predicts 'Coming of a New Ice Age' (Winningreen February 2008."


I predicted on this very site that the 60 year climate cycle (1910 cold, 1940 hot, 1970 cold, 2000 hot) was due for the downturn. Was I right?

I do find it interesting that the idea that the earth might be cooling is still described in a alarmist fashion. "COMING ICE AGE! WE ALL GONNA DIE!"

Mike

 

[justinzimm]

Hmmmm,

According to NOAA, GISS and government data, the year 2007 tied for the second hottest year on record.

It's called "global warming" for a reason...

"Was I right" - No.

J

 

[BreadmanMike]

This is going to get closed... I couldn't even have "Global warming is a joke" in my sig...

Kudos on the post though! :thumbsup:

 

[MCary]

Directly from the NOAA website: Top Story, no digging necessary. Please fact check before discussing.

NOAA: Coolest December-February Since 2001 for U.S., Globe


The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during December 2007-February 2008 (climatological boreal winter) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In terms of winter precipitation, Pacific storms bringing heavy precipitation to large parts of the West produced high snowpack that will provide welcome runoff this spring.

U.S. Winter Temperature Highlights
In the contiguous United States, the average winter temperature was 33.2°F (0.6°C), which was 0.2°F (0.1°C) above the 20th century average - yet still ranks as the coolest since 2001. It was the 54th coolest winter since national records began in 1895.

Winter temperatures were warmer than average from Texas to the Southeast and along the Eastern Seaboard, while cooler-than-average temperatures stretched from much of the upper Midwest to the West Coast.

With higher-than-average temperatures in the Northeast and South, the contiguous U.S. winter temperature-related energy demand was approximately 1.7 percent lower than average, based on NOAA's Residential Energy Demand Temperature Index

 

[airinhere]

IBTL.


Haven't you been paying attentition? There is no longer any mention of global warming in the media. Now its all about global climate change.

Why can we not have some impartial, rational science for once? I dont care if the results are more lopsided than global warming or the tobbacco companies doctors as long as it is good science.

I am sick to death of science that fails simple tests of logic.

There ought to be a law against making outlandish claims in the name of science, bettering mankind or saving the planet. Any of those topics should require careful wording and respect.

 

[greenbean36191]

And how statistically meaningful is all of this? It's not. You're comparing 3 months of noise to 30+ years of signal. If it continues for another 10 years then it probably means something. 1-5 years is essentially meaningless.

Last year was the driest year on record here. Does that mean that Alabama will be dryer from now on? No. In fact, so far this year we're quite a bit above normal for rainfall. It's natural variation.

 

[billsreef]

It was also an unusually warm winter on Long Island. Last I checked we were still part of the US here on the East Coast. The trick to any of this type of data is to graph it out and look at long term trends, not the individual spikes of any given year

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12148783#post12148783 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by BreadmanMike
This is going to get closed... I couldn't even have "Global warming is a joke" in my sig...

That was because it was political in nature

These threads stay open so long as the politics stay out of the discussion and everyone plays nice without getting into personal attacks

 

[MCary]

And how statistically meaningful is all of this? It's not. You're comparing 3 months of noise to 30+ years of signal. If it continues for another 10 years then it probably means something. 1-5 years is essentially meaningless.

Of course your right except for 2 things.

First it was predicted. It closely fits a pattern of the past 400 years.
And second, it interupts the correlation that the entire premise is based on. That increased co2 causes increased temp.

The cooling is contributed by some to decreased sunspot activity. I will assume that this is correct until I hear otherwise. It does show the complexity of the earths climate.

And some good news for reefers and the world reefs. 3000 probes put in the ocean have showed absolutely no warming of the earth's oceans for the past 7 years.

Mike

PS and kudos to you Bill. A lively, intelligent conversation on an interesting topic, free from venom and politics, makes the Resposible Reefkeeping section more fun to check out once in a while.

 

[greenbean36191]

First it was predicted. It closely fits a pattern of the past 400 years.

You're seeing a whole lot of significance where there is none. Relatively cooler periods in step with solar variance are predicted by skeptics and climatologists alike. The past year isn't evidence for either. As it stands, it's nothing but noise, regardless of who claimed it would happen.

Climatologists also predicted that GW would create stronger and more frequent tropical weather systems. Did the 2005 season prove them right? No. It was just an anomalously active year. The trend didn't continue and there's no way of knowing whether the 2007 cooling trend will continue. The majority of people who devote their lives to studying this believe that it won't. They're perfectly aware of sunspot cycles too.

And second, it interupts the correlation that the entire premise is based on. That increased co2 causes increased temp.

First of all, I'd do some independent auditing of the propaganda you read. I haven't done it with the 2007 data included, but I've done it up to 2006 and the correlation was so strong and had so many data points that I really doubt a single outlier was enough to seriously alter it.

Second, anthropogenic warming is a theory, not a hypothesis. It was never based on the correlation or any single piece of evidence. It's based on physics, observations, historical measurements, mathematical modeling, laboratory experiments and an entire body of evidence. By definition, disproving one of the pieces of evidence supporting the theory doesn't seriously weaken it. In fact, the theory predates the ability to measure the correlation.

And some good news for reefers and the world reefs. 3000 probes put in the ocean have showed absolutely no warming of the earth's oceans for the past 7 years.

Not quite true. You're looking at a dataset that spans 7 years in a system that takes between 5-10 years to show statistically significant changes. Also, over the same time period the ARGOs were showing no increase, or even cooling, GMSL was increasing, which was at odds with a cooling or stable ocean temp. As it turns out, a lot of the floats had hardware problems that caused erroneous readings. So now that the known problems have been corrected, it's still not clear what the data means.

The bad news is that CO2 is still increasing and the associated pH drop definitely still poses a (bigger) threat to the world's reefs.

 

[MCary]

Wow, that's an incredible amount of justification. Why don't you consider the recent evidence with the same zeal that you accept supportive data?

The fact is, the globe has seen a cooling trend for the past decade. Is ten years a significant amount of time? Well, for the GW people, the previous ten years seemed to be.

It's based on physics, observations, historical measurements, mathematical modeling, laboratory experiments and an entire body of evidence.

Actually, this is not true, climatologists do not use physics, math, or laboratory experimentation. They may cherry pick data from others in these fields, but the vast majority of data from climatologists are observations, computer models, and the output is predictions. Predictions which have be up to this date, either wrong, or have alternate explantions.

Not quite true.

exactly true. Imperical evidence of 3000 probes. You may say that more time is needed, and that might be true, but the data to this point is clear. No warming of the oceans, northern Pacific cooling, artic rebounding by 2 million square miles. Those are absolute facts. Explanation of the phenomenon is subjective, but the facts are facts.

First of all, I'd do some independent auditing of the propaganda you read.

The use of the word propaganda was unfortunate on your part.
Please don't do that. It makes you seem small and close minded. This topic can be discussed on its merits without trying to apply labels and slander on those who have opinions different than yours.

I am a scientist, well learned, with degrees in biology and chemistry. I am also a super skeptic. I am not duped easily. I take no ones word for anything.

NASA, IPCC, and NOAA have all admited this validity of this data. They are hardly rightwing, oil producing, organizations.

Mike

 

[greenbean36191]

The fact is, the globe has seen a cooling trend for the past decade. Is ten years a significant amount of time? Well, for the GW people, the previous ten years seemed to be.

Check your "facts." Over the past ten years, the HadCRUT3v (land and sea surface temp anomaly) dataset STILL shows that the trend has been one of warming. The GISStemp land/sea data agrees. Despite what Singer and company have been blogging for the last ten years, warming didn't stop in 1998. The only way to make it look that way is to use 1998, the second hottest year in the observational record, as the starting point..... Who's cherrypicking data?

Given the slope of the trend line for the last ten years from the hadCRUT3v, (.006) I would guess that the trend over that period is NOT significant.

I've graphed the hadCRUT3v data for the last 20 and 10 year periods with trend lines (red) and formulas along with a 5 year running average (black) for you. I urge you to try it yourself rather than taking someone else's word for what the trends are. The data sets are publicly available.

Actually, this is not true, climatologists do not use physics, math, or laboratory experimentation. They may cherry pick data from others in these fields, but the vast majority of data from climatologists are observations, computer models, and the output is predictions.

Here is one of the first papers on the subject.
http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/18/Arrhenius.pdf
Notice that it's from 1896- long before computer modeling was even thought of and long before the increase in either CO2 or temp was actually measured. How did he come to his conclusion? Based on the physics of radiation balance and numbers that were derived through experimentation. Exactly the same place the computer models come from. Computers only understand mathematical formulas. You have to use the physics to model anything. You can't just enter historical data and forecast anything more than a trend line.

I've been following this story in the academic and pop-sci lit for the past 15 plus years. I've read far too much of the actual literature to be naive enough to believe your claim that physics and experimentation aren't used.

Predictions which have be up to this date, either wrong, or have alternate explantions.

The models in the IPCC reports have been pretty darn accurate, at least when they include human forcings. There are several older papers that did a pretty poor job of modeling, but they also used much simpler models and much less computing power. No one should be surprised that the older information isn't quite as good as the more recent information.

It's like arguing that we shouldn't trust Einstein's work because Newton's equations before him weren't quite right. The point is that the older ideas were close enough to make predictions about what's going to happen generally, but they don't work perfectly. With a better understanding, the more recent work gives more fidelity. That's how science works. It's self-correcting.

exactly true. Imperical evidence of 3000 probes. You may say that more time is needed, and that might be true, but the data to this point is clear.

Yes, it's empirical evidence from 3000 probes. However, what the evidence means is absolutely NOT clear. This data set is saying one thing, others are saying another. GMSL is rising. If the ocean temp is stable or cooling, that's hard to explain. Also, the XBT record, which makes up most of the record prior to the last 7 years also doesn't show the plateau or cooling. We already know that a large number of the ARGO floats were giving erroneously cool readings. It's not clear whether there were other unknown measuring errors or if the results are an artifact of where the temps were measured. However, the data are in conflict with other data from other sources and that has yet to be reconciled. Even the authors of the papers where the data was published admit that it's unclear what the data actually means.

The use of the word propaganda was unfortunate on your part.
Please don't do that. It makes you seem small and close minded. This topic can be discussed on its merits without trying to apply labels and slander on those who have opinions different than yours.

Lets call a spade a spade. You posted a thread saying "Was I right?" and posting cherrypicked numbers from dubious sources and making claims that aren't borne out by the academic literature. That is the definition of propaganda and really calls into question how open minded you are on the subject yourself.

NASA, IPCC, and NOAA have all admited this validity of this data. They are hardly rightwing, oil producing, organizations.

I never doubted the validity of the data. I doubt the significance of the data.

 

[airinhere]

This sort of debate illustrates the questionable and ego driven nature of many of the scientific studies being used to support or deny global warming.

Here we have two individuals who have passionate opinions about the topic that are at polar opposites of one another.

Both individuals rely upon data that they see as credible and the other sees as dubious. This in no way mitigates the raw data from either perspective, it simply points out the shortcomings in both sets of data to produce a swaying argument.

I mean seriously, here we have two individuals who have devoted substantial amounts of time to understanding the topic and they can not come to anything resembling a concensus. What hope does the rest of the world have for understanding the issue at hand?

Should we all just do whatever we are told to do by the media? Should we just ignore the issue and hope it will go away?

The topic is so complex and so broad in its reach that any argument about it could go on forever.

I personally do not care if everyone agrees with my understanding of global warming or climate change or whatever its called today. What I do care about is that I have to listen to people argue about it all the time like they were defending their choice of religion.

Perhaps the first step towards dealing with global warming (or climate change or whatever) is to stop arguing.

And be ready to have the data (good or bad) disected and potentially shot down. There should be no amount of ego injected into any of the data.

What ever happened to having scientific review of new scientific studies? What happened to keeping new concepts out of the public areana untill there was something to report?

Its been plenty long enough to come to some conclusions. Where are the concrete results?

Where are the clear cut and defined answers we have come to expect form our scientific community?

I still can't shake the feeling this is just sensationalistic journalism creating a boogeyman for us all to fear, and not true science driving this whole issue.
(But as far as societal boogeymen are concerned, this is a great topic. At least there are no humans being directly targetted).

 

[MCary]

Lets call a spade a spade. You posted a thread saying "Was I right?" and posting cherrypicked numbers from dubious sources and making claims that aren't borne out by the academic literature. That is the definition of propaganda and really calls into question how open minded you are on the subject yourself.

This is what I mean, I read the rest of your post with great interest. But this paragraph added nothing to your point. I hesitate to respond, but a short reponse, you cannot assume a source to be dubious just because you disagree with it. Enough personal stuff. Back to the topic.

I've graphed the hadCRUT3v data for the last 20 and 10 year periods with trend lines (red) and formulas along with a 5 year running average (black) for you. I urge you to try it yourself rather than taking someone else's word for what the trends are. The data sets are publicly available.

I appreciate your efforts on this part. Also, you have as much chance of being right than anyone else I guess. But your going against your peers who clearly state that except for an anomoly of a short el nino, the temps have trended downward since 1997.

airinhere, you are abosulutely right. This debate can get long and dry, and in end, it amount to dueling cut and pastes. But I would like to see if I can narrow the conversation and not debate whether global warming is real or not. Because, this has never been about whether GW is real, believe it or not. It's about the catastrophy predictions. Wiithout these predictions GW would be no more than an interesting scientific footnote.

So, what does recent low temperatures, rebounding poles and increased precipitation throughout the northern hemisphere do to those predictions and the timetables of out emminant demise.

Just curious, I really don't know.

Mike

 

[buck50bmg]

Keep drinking the global warming grape kool aid

 

[airinhere]

The data you put forth seem to indicate exactly what you claim.

The more radical issues of global warming are near their useful end. No longer will you find much reference to global warming anywhere.

The new term is global climate change. It allows for temperature fluctuations into colder temperatures while still maintaining the doomsday prophecizing.

There has been a long term gradual adjustment of perspective ever since climate studies started. Originally the fear was that we were facing global cooling. Somehow things have come full circle.

Society needs a common boogeyman to rally against. We have strong inclinations towards conflict. Without the threat of nuclear destruction a new enemy had to be found for the American people. Aliens showed up in some great movies, but so did the weather and space rocks.

Aliens and space rocks are too outlandish to rally against (unless they showed up) so it seems the weather has ended up being our new American enemy.

Which is allright. The weather is something everyone can have an opinion on and experience firsthand. Makes for good conversation starter material also. (Nice weather were having...)

Considering the current war in the middle east, we should all thank global warming for allowing us to minimize a prejudice based American enemy that we could have easily adopted.

I for one am thrilled we got to minimize that

Believe what you want to about global climate change. Either way, its all about faith.

 

[Rossini]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12168663#post12168663 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by airinhere
I still can't shake the feeling this is just sensationalistic journalism creating a boogeyman for us all to fear, and not true science driving this whole issue.
).

It was so obvious that this was going to be your opinion on it.

Greenbean has perfectly explained the "science",but STILL its the same old stuff like "well theres two sides of the argument,lets keep debating this" all its doing is putting off accepting that we need to tackle the problem.

 

[MCary]

Actually, Greenbean misrepresented the science. I know it is impossible to change the mind of a true believer so I let it go. But it you want to know, and if you have an open mind I'll explain.

Greenbean data mined and produced graphs that suupported his contention. Similiar the the fraud that Mann did when he produced the now debunked "Hockey Stick Graph"

Here is a graph which is the same hadCRUT as greenbeans but show the trend from the peak to this years cold winter. This is up to date. But believe what you wish. Just don't try to be the moral authority of all that is good and evil with those that disagree.

As you can clearly see, a trendline put on this graph from 1998 to 2008, a ten year period, would clearly show a downward trend for the past 10 years. You absolutely cannot claim a dangerous correlation between increased CO2 and temperatures if the trend does not follow your predictions. After all, that's what a correlation is.

Mike

 

[billsreef]

You really need to look at much larger chunks of time than just 10 years. Especially when you consider there are normal short duration cycles that occur within the longer time scale of say 100 years. While you want to just take that slice from 1998 to Jan. 2008, you are simply comparing two of the biggest spikes on the graph. If you go out to another 10 years and include 1998 as the graph has, you end up with a trend line that shows a gradual and definite warming trend

BTW I was attending lectures on this subject at WHOI back when the Cold War and worry about nuclear missiles was still in full swing

 

[greenbean36191]

What ever happened to having scientific review of new scientific studies? What happened to keeping new concepts out of the public areana untill there was something to report?

Nothing has changed in the review process or the way academic work is published. What has changed is the number of armchair experts out there and the ease and willingness to cite them as true experts. Blame the internet.

Where are the clear cut and defined answers we have come to expect form our scientific community?

Over at least the past 15 years there hasn't been a single peer-reviewed academic journal article arguing that global warming isn't happening, that there is a threat of cooling in the near future, or that humans don't have a significant influence on the process. Those arguments have all played out in unscientific arenas. The answers to those questions have been pretty clear-cut for a while. The answers of how much warming, how fast, and what the relative influences are is still being debated.

you cannot assume a source to be dubious just because you disagree with it.

The sources are dubious regardless of their stance on the issue- Al Gore, The Sierra Club, etc. are just as dubious. Every one of the sources you listed is on Marc Moreno's blog. He, and his boss are notorious for their misrepresentation of scientific work. I'll go through them one by one and address them individually in the order you have them listed.

1. A blog posting by a non-expert, no statistical analysis, no citation of peer-reviewed academic work
2. An opinion column in a newspaper, written by a non-expert, blatantly misrepresents the work of cited scientists
3. A news report. This one actually says that ice cover increased 2 million square miles and 10-20cm in thickness from last year's record low and is almost back to pre-2007 levels.
4. Another news report. This one too points out that there's nothing terribly unusual about this year's ice cover and that it doesn't contradict the long-term trend of warming.
5. A credible, peer-reviewed academic journal. However, Moreno misrepresents the paper. The author notes that the temp record is only regional, is at odds with other regional records for the same time period, and part of the record becomes unreliable from the 1800s onward. There is no statement about trends within the timescale for which AGW is attributable.
6. A blog post. Again, this one points out that while things got a late start, the melt is occurring at a pace that puts it on track to catch up to normal.
7. A newspaper editorial, cites non-experts and the Hoover Institution which is funded by ARCO, Exxon, GM, Ford, and Chrysler
8. A non-academic paper written by a non-expert. The creator of the model the author uses also claims that it realistic numbers don't generate the claimed outcome.
9. A blog post by a non-expert, citing other non-experts
10. A blog post by a non-expert, cites other newspapers and quotes individuals with unknown credibility
11. A post by a political consulting firm citing no evidence

So of the 11 sources listed, only 2 represent peer-reviewed academic work, both of which grossly misrepresent the findings of the author. 10 of the 11 were either newspaper or blog articles. Only two were written by people who were experts in the field they were writing about. Several of them directly state that they aren't evidence for cooling. Those sources wouldn't pass as reliable for use in a freshman research paper.

But your going against your peers who clearly state that except for an anomoly of a short el nino, the temps have trended downward since 1997.

Which peers are these? The only scientists I know of making this claim are Richard Lindzen and Bob Carter, though I've yet to seen a scientific argument for their claim or even a statistical basis for it. Both claim to use the hadCRUT data, which is the same data I used and which clearly does not show cooling. Lindzen's own graph which accompanied his claim looked nearly identical to mine, only he didn't bother to throw in the trend line or the equation for it to show what's actually going on. To test whether he actually believes whether his claim is true Bob Carter has been offered very favorable odds several times to bet on whether the temp will go up or down, but he has never taken the offer.

So, what does recent low temperatures, rebounding poles and increased precipitation throughout the northern hemisphere do to those predictions and the timetables of out emminant demise.

Nothing. These are weather events. They're short-term and mostly regional noise. At the same time the events you listed were occurring, large parts of the world were seeing record high temps. The predictions are concerned with global climate, which is long-term and obviously global trends.

No longer will you find much reference to global warming anywhere.

The new term is global climate change. It allows for temperature fluctuations into colder temperatures while still maintaining the doomsday prophecizing.

"Global warming" was never very widely used in academic literature. The change to "climate change" in the popular press (if it is occurring I haven't noticed) does not reflect any change in scientific opinion or anyone trying to cover their butts. That "change" when referring to the near future is still understood to mean warming.

If there is any recent change in preference, it's most likely a response to criticism that the term "global warming" implies that it's predicted to get warmer everywhere, which isn't true. When people hear "global warming" and then their neck of the woods gets 5 ft of snow they tune out, even if what they're seeing isn't contradictory to the theory.

Originally the fear was that we were facing global cooling. Somehow things have come full circle.

This was never a widespread belief and still isn't. A new article is in press right now that reviewed papers from 1965-1979 found 44 papers that predicted warming and 7 that predicted cooling. In at least the past 15 years, not a single peer-reviewed academic journal article has predicted or measured a global cooling trend.