Global warming?

[MCary]

You are absolutely correct. Nothing of what I posted disproves global warming. What it shows, if what I read is true, that sunspot activitity has enormously more impact on the climate than does the green house effect. I believe one source mentioned an 11 years cycle on sunspots. In one single year, sunspots were able to show a delta change of 0.595 degrees C. A change that, if GW is the culprit, took the earth 20 years to do before. This also presents a problem in the computer modeling. The computer does not take sunspot activity into consideration when making its predictions. (it also does not consider cloud cover, increased vegitation, or volocanoes, but that is an aside).

Another problem with the computer models is they make assumptions based on theories. If these theories are incorrect, then the prediction is flaws. For example, water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas, I believe it is responsible for over 90% of the greenhouse effect. If you need me to look it up for accuracy I can. Climatologists have hypothesized that increase temps would lead to increased evaporation and therefore increasing the water vapor in the upper atmosphere and therefore case an amplified effect. However, NASA with the help of their satallites have determined that the opposite is actually true. That increased temps show a decrease in atmospheric water vapor. This could turn the entire model on its head showing the earth has a very powerful self regulating mechanism.

I know some of this material may be new to some and will take some time to digest. It is recent data and not well publicized because it does not fit the dogma, but it is there and the IPCC, NOAA and NASA know about it. Hardly stooges for the oil industry.

I would still be curious what the sentiments of the believers are once you read the latest data with an open mind. As a scientist I am trained to go where the data takes me without a predetermined outcome. Try that and see if you at all become skeptical or at least curious.

Mike

 

[greenbean36191]

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"

You can try reproducing the graph yourself if you're convinced I'm data mining. The dataset I used can be found here:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt

The dataset the creator of that graph claims to have used, which is a slightly different version is here, though you'll notice that the numbers on the graph and the numbers in the data don't match:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt

You can also try it with the NASA GISStemp data which is available online as well though I don't have a link. Like Bill noted, you have to cherrypick your high and low points to get things to support a cooling trend.

 

[MCary]

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

Please don't make ad hominem arguments like this that can't be backed up by the facts. There are many, many, peer reviewed articles arguing that very fact. I'm sure someone told you that, but some quick reseach would tell you that's a lie. And you have to ask yourself, if the facts speak for themselves, why would they need to lie.

And I wouldn't put that much stock in the peer review process. Remember Mann's hockey stick graph was peer reviewed. Turned out to be a fraud. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of mathematics should have spotted it during peer review. Plus Mann never, and still won't, release his data. How do you peer review someone without reviewing there data?

Anyway, if your sticking your story, and using new jargon like "climate change" then you will never be wrong. Any anomoly in the climate supports you dogma, "darn it rained today, and it didn't rain last year on this day, must be climate change"

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.

Again, you are seeing what you want to see and what my post actually says. The information I gave you is temperatures for the entire globe, not regions. And long term climate change has never, i repeat for clarification, never, been a condition of GW. The concern is for a short term, rapid, catostrophic change in the climate.

Most of what you have written to this point is justification for data that does not fit your preconception. You call it noise or you attack the source. You say that its true but misapplied or misinterpreted. If your bio is correct and you truely are a science student, I hope you learn to have an scientific curiousity before you graduate. The Know it All Already attitude will not serve you well in our field.

Mike

 

[greenbean36191]

Please don't make ad hominem arguments like this that can't be backed up by the facts. There are many, many, peer reviewed articles arguing that very fact. I'm sure someone told you that, but some quick reseach would tell you that's a lie.

In 2003 Science published a review of the 928 articles from ISI recognized scientific journals published over the past 10 years that listed "climate change" as keywords. None of the articles claimed that global warming wasn't happening, that humans weren't contributing, or that the planet was likely to cool in the near future. Since then nothing has changed.

Can you produce a single citation from a widely-circulated, peer-reviewed, academic journal (preferably recognized by the ISI) that contends that global warming isn't happening, humans aren't having an impact, or that there is a current or expected cooling trend in the near future?

Not every publication with peer-review is a scholarly journal. Energy and Environment with its 26 subscribers or the other obscure journals where non-experts are publishing "peer-reviewed" articles are not scholarly academic journals any more than Reefkeeping Magazine is (it has expert contributors AND peer-review).

Remember Mann's hockey stick graph was peer reviewed. Turned out to be a fraud. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of mathematics should have spotted it during peer review. Plus Mann never, and still won't, release his data. How do you peer review someone without reviewing there data?

Yes, and Mann's graph was basically correct. Since the whole hubbub over the graph broke out numerous other authors have done reconstructions for the same period and although they got slightly different graphs (from different data sets) the big picture was still the same. That is exactly how peer review should work. Someone claimed that the results were erroneous, people tried to replicate them, found there were some errors, and in the end we got a more accurate picture.

There were even congressional hearings over the graph and they both found that although the methods weren't perfect, the errors don't significantly change the result. As a result of those hearings Mann did release all of his data, which he had already started to do prior to the hearings.

Reviewers look at the methods, not the data. The methods weren't perfect, but the errors weren't enough to change the outcome or the point of the paper, which was about uncertainties in climate reconstruction.

The information I gave you is temperatures for the entire globe, not regions.

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.

America, Canada, China, the Northern Hemisphere, the Arctic... those are regions and the occurrences there are weather, not climate.

And long term climate change has never, i repeat for clarification, never, been a condition of GW. The concern is for a short term, rapid, catostrophic change in the climate.

The key word there is CLIMATE. Climate is the long-term trend in weather patterns. Weather is the short-term variability. Statistically, climate is signal and weather is noise. Short-term, rapid climate change is on the order of decades to centuries, not months or years. Change from year to year is still weather.

In one single year, sunspots were able to show a delta change of 0.595 degrees C.

Climatologists have hypothesized that increase temps would lead to increased evaporation and therefore increasing the water vapor in the upper atmosphere and therefore case an amplified effect. However, NASA with the help of their satallites have determined that the opposite is actually true. That increased temps show a decrease in atmospheric water vapor. This could turn the entire model on its head showing the earth has a very powerful self regulating mechanism.

Do you have sources?

This also presents a problem in the computer modeling. The computer does not take sunspot activity into consideration when making its predictions. (it also does not consider cloud cover, increased vegitation, or volocanoes, but that is an aside).

You should read the methods for the models you're criticizing. Although these are all sources of uncertainty in the models (we can't predict when large volcanoes like Pinatubo will erupt), they're all included in most modern models.

If these theories are incorrect, then the prediction is flaws.

Those flaws should also become evident in hindcasts, but they don't. There is no a priori reason to assume they're flawed just because we can't say they aren't. The best evidence suggests that they work pretty well. There could be a flock of toasters orbiting the Earth too, but we have no reason to assume that that's the case.

 

[MCary]

Yes, and Mann's graph was basically correct. Since the whole hubbub over the graph broke out numerous other authors have done reconstructions for the same period and although they got slightly different graphs (from different data sets) the big picture was still the same. That is exactly how peer review should work. Someone claimed that the results were erroneous, people tried to replicate them, found there were some errors, and in the end we got a more accurate picture.

Once again, Untrue. One main problem with Mann's graph was that others could not reproduce it. This is basic scientific theory. An experiment must be able to reproduced by another lab to be valid.

Let me link you to a good explanation of the rest of the problems with Mann's graph.

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf

Here's a link explaining the water vapor situation from 2004, since then the satallite has collected more data and found an inverse relationship. Finding non supportive evidence from the original source is difficult. I will continue to search, I don't want to report it second hand from a blog.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315humidity.html

You really can't to continue to have it both ways.

Is the melting of the polar ice caps proof of global warming or a local weather phenom? Then what is the expansion?

If 10 years is not long enough, then is 20? The earth is 4 billion years old. What is a signifigant amount of time? The trend line from 1934 to today is cooling, is that a good amount of time or should we start at 1970 where it shows warming?

What is climate? You say the long-term trend in weather patterns. But you call everything that doesn't support your thesis noise or weather. But I think your wrong according to your own definition. A clear hot day is weather. A drought is climate. A snowstorm is weather. A wet winter is climate. A cold day is weather, a winter which averages -40 degrees is climate.

America, Canada, China, the Northern Hemisphere, the Arctic...

It is winter in the northern hemisphere. That is where winter measurements are made. Its summer in the southern hemisphere.

But like I mentioned, the "global" temperatures are down a half degree C. Just the northern hemisphere is wayyyy lower. And I think that measuring the entire northern hemisphere over the entirety of the season could accurately be called climate.

Mike

 

[Rossini]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12174303#post12174303 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by 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]

Once again, Untrue. One main problem with Mann's graph was that others could not reproduce it. This is basic scientific theory. An experiment must be able to reproduced by another lab to be valid.

Wahl and Ammann reproduced it using Mann's methodology AND with the corrections suggested by McIntyre and McKitrick (see the conclusion on page 35 and figures starting on page 70):
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/WahlAmmann_ClimaticChange_inPress.pdf
From the paper, A) is the reproduction by Wahl and Ammann and D) is the reproduction comparing Mann's methodology and MM's corrections:
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/recon/WEB_examples.jpg

Despite your claims to the contrary, Mann's data was published in Nature and can be found here:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n6995/extref/nature02478-s1.htm

Other authors (Russell?) have also used entirely different methodologies and arrived at the same conclusion and similar graphs.

In their congressional committee on the subject, the National Academy of Sciences ruled that MM were right about the errors, but that they made no difference to the conclusion or meaning of the graph. In the 4th IPCC report the original Mann graph was replaced by a graph that overlaid about a dozen independently derived reconstructions for the same time period that showed essentially the same thing. All of the reconstructions fell within the error bars from Mann.
See pg 14:
http://www.junkscience.com/draft_AR4/Ch06_SOD_Figs_TSU_FINAL_P1.pdf

MM's points about Mann's errors were valid, but don't change the outcome. The corrected method and others have still reached the same conclusion. Mann's paper clearly wasn't a fraud since he did supply the data for audit and when their method (or variations thereof) is applied, the graph is reproducable.

Here's a link explaining the water vapor situation from 2004, since then the satallite has collected more data and found an inverse relationship. Finding non supportive evidence from the original source is difficult.

I haven't read the whole paper, but it looks like it's another one pointing out the discrepancy between predicted troposphere warming over the tropics and what's been measured. It's still a problem and there have been at least two similar papers that I know of written since then (Cristy was an author for both IIRC) and subsequent corrections made to the models. There were also measuring errors in the instrumental records that had to be corrected. A lot of the discrepancy between the models and real world has been reconciled to the point that the uncertainties overlap. In any case there's no major effect on the conclusion of what's going on down here.

You really can't to continue to have it both ways.

Is the melting of the polar ice caps proof of global warming or a local weather phenom? Then what is the expansion?

If 10 years is not long enough, then is 20? The earth is 4 billion years old. What is a signifigant amount of time? The trend line from 1934 to today is cooling, is that a good amount of time or should we start at 1970 where it shows warming?

What is climate? You say the long-term trend in weather patterns. But you call everything that doesn't support your thesis noise or weather. But I think your wrong according to your own definition. A clear hot day is weather. A drought is climate. A snowstorm is weather. A wet winter is climate. A cold day is weather, a winter which averages -40 degrees is climate.

You can have it both ways. Melting or growing ice can be due to either climate or weather. If the average temp increases for several years you would expect a decrease in ice, just as you would a single extremely warm-weather year. That's why statistical analysis is important. It can distinguish between the two.

Imagine you measured the heights of 1000 kids between the ages of 5 and 18. There's a natural amount of variation in the system (statistical noise), so not every 11 yr old is going to be taller than every 10 yr old. On average though, there is a trend towards increasing height with age (the "signal"). If you plotted it out, you wouldn't get a smooth linear increase with age. You get a line with lots of peaks and valleys that may or may not show a clear trend. How how big a change has to be or how long it has to persist to be significant depends on how much noise there is in the signal, what time periods you're comparing, and how many data points you're using. With data with lots of variation (noise), changes have to be bigger to be significant.

Climate is a noisy system on various scales from interdecadal to intermillenial. It takes multiple years for statistically significant changes to occur. The chaotic, unpredictable, statistically insignificant events are weather. The roughly predictable, multi-year, statistical signal is climate. Single-year events like droughts or wet winters are never climate. Neither are hot summers or active hurricane seasons.

 

[Rossini]

Massive respect to you Greenbean. Thanks for explaining things so well.

 

[DNickell]

Anybody here ever read George Perkins Marsh's "Man and Nature?"

He gathered interesting observations way before all the economic and political loyalties were causing so much public confusion.

 

[mcintosh]

I appreciate the two of you going back and forth, proving and disproving. But, honestly I think it misses the point. As we argue about who is right and who is wrong we are losing reef and forests, sea, land, and air to pollution caused by us because we are too lazy to act and do something about it.

If tomorrow every American were to switch from inefficient incandescent bulbs to compact fluorescent bulbs we would make a difference in the amount of CO2 produced every year and the amount of gas burned every day to produce energy. If we stopped over watering and fertilizing our lawns we would stop the runoff that is adding fuel to the algae fire in our lakes and oceans, and if we simply recycled aluminum cans we could cut the amount of gas used to produce future cans by something like 15 million gallons(I believe that is an underestimate).

Let's stop going back and forth on the minutia and do what we can to preserve the world for future generations.

 

[samtheman]

What other major scientific theorys are based on unvarified mathamatical models?

 

[greenbean36191]

That's a loaded question. You make the implication that the theory of AGW is based on "unverified mathematical models," which it isn't. It is based on physics and observations. It is supported by testable models.

 

[Rossini]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12224857#post12224857 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by mcintosh
I appreciate the two of you going back and forth, proving and disproving. But, honestly I think it misses the point. As we argue about who is right and who is wrong we are losing reef and forests, sea, land, and air to pollution caused by us because we are too lazy to act and do something about it.

If tomorrow every American were to switch from inefficient incandescent bulbs to compact fluorescent bulbs we would make a difference in the amount of CO2 produced every year and the amount of gas burned every day to produce energy. If we stopped over watering and fertilizing our lawns we would stop the runoff that is adding fuel to the algae fire in our lakes and oceans, and if we simply recycled aluminum cans we could cut the amount of gas used to produce future cans by something like 15 million gallons(I believe that is an underestimate).

Let's stop going back and forth on the minutia and do what we can to preserve the world for future generations.

Thats what some of us want. For our goverments to start acting on tackling the issue,and people to start doing there bit as a consumer. But there is still some people who would like the debate to go on and on,and try to rubbish the facts and mislead. Which is what has gone on for years and years. We have wasted so much time on this. And the misinformation and propoganda that is still spouted around is just what most people in the western world want to hear,they dont want to give up there massive natural resource consuming and polluting ways.

 

[DNickell]

Seems to me that even IF the whole climate change issue isn't as bad as the climate scientist think it is, the solutions being offered are still things we ought to be doing.

That said, as George Perkins Marsh demonstrated WAY back before this debate began, humans have changed climate and ecosystems and have been doing it for a long time--usually with really bad results.

At what point do we start taking responsibility for our behaviors? Sounds like growing up, doesn't it. I often wonder about the Easter Islanders listening to the argument over whether they should stop cutting down trees.

Maybe we are to the point that we better start thinking of this planet as the island it is.

 

[samtheman]

When people get really concerned about the ecology of our planet, they will restrain population growth. Until then we will only treat the symptoms.

 

[DNickell]

You are exactly right.

Until everyone is able to see their own life from a larger perspective, however, we might ought to treat some of those symptoms.

It's best to treat the cause of the fever, but in the meantime, its good to keep the fever under control.

With as many of us as there are right now its hard for me to understand how anyone can believe we aren't impacting the environmental system we depend upon for our survival. That there is resistance to even takiing that into account is beyond me.

 

[Wolverine]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12225003#post12225003 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by samtheman
What other major scientific theorys are based on unvarified mathamatical models?

Big blocks of theoretical physics.

 

[Jacob D]

I don't mean to belittle any of the research, time, or effort put into the posts on this thread, but I'd like to try and make a different point....

Whichever argument one tends to support there is a commonality between supporters of all arguments; the commonality is a general concern for the planet. Without such concerned there would be no reason to invest time and energy in pursuit of an definitive outcome.

So much time and energy is spent focusing on topics like this that we tend not to see the forest through the trees. Ultimately the question should be: "What is the impact of humans on the environment; what steps can be made to reduce our impact, and how can we start taking these steps?"

Reefkeepers should know as well, if not better, as anyone that the ecosystem in the glass box can only process so much pollution. We go to great lengths to keep the ecosystem in pristine condition; we carefully monitor what is allowed into the system, we spend countless dollars on devices to prevent pollutants from entering the system and to remove that which is produced by the system, and when that's not enough we perform water changes, sometimes requiring hours of time and mouthfuls of salty siphon water, to reduce the pollutants. All of this and we don't even live in the glass box, we just look at.

If we only had this concern for our own ecosystem, the one that we actually DO live in, and our children, and their children will live in. It all boils down to the almighty dollar of course. The least expensive way is always least environmentally friendly way: It's easier to grow vegetables with pesticides than without. It's easier to let farm run off into the water ways than capture and filter it. It's easier to burn oil than alternative fuels. It's easier to process countless materials using toxic chemicals than to find a clean alternative. It's easier for us to consume all of these and only spend a buck instead of a couple of bucks.

I believe we're just at the beginning of an era where people will become more conscious of their impact on the planet, as individuals and as members of the human race. Conservation, Green, recycling, zero-waste, these are all buzz words that will soon be common vocabulary.

Start accepting responsibility for your environmental impact and change one thing in your lifestyle to decrease your "footprint" on the environment. There's no reason that cumulative changes in each of our lifestyles can't create global changes in industry who typically dictates our life style. Globalization is bringing about change in peoples' habits and lifestyles. All major industries know this and a lot of folks would be surprised at the approaches used to move products into cultures that would otherwise not have consumed them. An educated and conscious consumer is a step in the right direction. Once we show that the almighty dollar is not as important as being responsible for our actions industry will change, those who haven't converted to a conscious lifestyle will slowly adapt to the changing trends, and the argument over warming, cooling, or otherwise becomes mute. The real argument is "are we doing all we can?" and if not to keep pushing. All of the data, graphs, and statistics in the world won't make a difference, only actions will. Those of you who have done your research on the topic of this thread have all done a great job, I hope you will (or do) devote as much energy towards lifestyle changes to benefit the environment, which you have unquestionable concern for.


If anyone needs a little help getting started try this


Thanks for indulging my soap box!

 

[MCary]

Sorry Jacob, but you are naive to say the least. Your little rant did cover all the PC buzz words, but the fact that you have the luxury to discuss the environment is a product of the almighty dollar. Do you think a starving African care about the envirnment. He'd eat the last Panda if offered to him. Our lifestyle and out middle class status has allowed us to have this conversation. And one of the number one reasons we are a well off as we are is because of cheap abundant energy. The worst pollution we produce today is CO2? Do you have any idea how absurd this is? You can't even breathe in industrial cities in China. Mountains have been stripped bare in Kosovo for firewood. Land has been desimmated in famine areas.

Poverty is the #1 most damaging thing on earth. It destroys the environment and kills 10x more people than all other causes of death combined. You already see what $4 gas is doing to our economy. What do you think $10 methanol will do?

And just what do you really think we can do as a people? The best solution has been fought tooth and nail by the tree huggers. 300 nuclear power plants would eliminate all fossil fuel burning to generate electricity in the US. So whats the hold up? Are they serious about wanting to fix this problem or not?

No lets all put solar panels on our house. Forget for a minute that they cost more than the money they will save in their useful life. It takes more fossil fuels to manufacture them, take them to the site and install that all the energy they will produce. But hey, at least you get to feel all smug about how you are single handly saving mother earth from the terrible pollution that every single living thing exhales, including plants at night. Every rotting vegatable, every dung pile, every thing that has carbon.

Maybe use hydrogen, oops, hydrogen is extracted from natural gas, biproduct, methane and co2. okay maybe not hydrogen.

Biofuel! Once again, you burn it, co2. And it takes as much fuel to make it as it produces.

Sorry guys, but if environmental issues concern you enough to get passionate about then do some homework. Don't proxy your thinking to someone else.

Mike

 

[Jacob D]

Wow, your response was sensationally over the top; good job.

The worst pollution we produce today is CO2? Do you have any idea how absurd this is?

I never mentioned C02. The worst thing we do is ignorantly assume that our resources will be around forever and give little thought to how to make more efficient use of them.

And just what do you really think we can do as a people?

Sure, why bother doing anything it's much better to not worry about it and let someone else (extra terrestrials perhaps?) figure it out us. Are you serious?

Mountains have been stripped bare in Kosovo for firewood. Land has been desimmated in famine areas....

Poverty is the #1 most damaging thing on earth.

I didn't say all of the worlds problems would be fixed magically, but's it's helps you to make your point to suppose I did. Fine.

You seem to understand that developed countries feed into the problems associated with impoverished nations. They cater to our wants and needs. Deforest the Amazon to sell hard wood to the US and Europe? Sure they're only trees! We can't expect them to care but if those of us who DO have the luxury to make a choice about what we consume, where it comes from, whether or not it's a sustainable resource ect, chose not to do anything then it's certain nothing will change. If you take away the market, or provide a sustainable alternative then you've done something positive. Whether you want to feel all warm and gushy about it is your business.

People ARE becoming more aware of the world around them and the environment; you obviously believe that the concept of wide sweeping change is better than gradual change but it doesn't invalidate my point. The Japanese have been very successful at this philosophy in business; formally it's known as Kaizen. People resist wide sweeping change, it's our nature. Gradual change is easier to accept and more feasible to implement.

Industry is gaining an awareness as well. Zero-waste isn't just a buzz word, industry is increasingly adopting this philosophy. By streamlining processes it not only conserves resources but reduces handling byproducts and disposing of or having to recycle those byproducts, which all results in more efficient use of energy. In some cases this is cost effective, mostly not, but it's responsible and gives them a better reputation to the people who care, their consumers.

It's irrelevant if the world is heating up or cooling down, it's not like we can flip a switch and it's all going to be better. We're pillaging and polluting the world to no end, it's good that people are becoming aware of it. Industry can make changes on a grander scale and individuals can make changes on a smaller scale. Those who sit on their hands thinking they don't count are the ones who are naive.