Thats bull.... C02 what is causing the earth to heat up is 98% from volcanoes... The other 2% is from us... The earth has a cycle I believe... This is what prob happened years before us... Its a recurrent event, most of everything what happened in the past is going to happen again intel the sun burns out in 10 million years or whenever that is...
Greenhouse emmisions.........are we doomed by 2050
- Thread starter Skepperz
- Start date
- Status
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
I don't have greenbean's energy right now to explain this to you, so click my red house and read a little. Greenbean linked to the site as well, it's realclimate. Click "start here" on the top of their website's homepage, it's about the best climate change primer I can think of.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
Ok, I was lazy last night and didn't spend a whole lot of time trying to find other sites I liked, but here are a few I thought of.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
http://aquarium.ucsd.edu/climate/
Beyond estimates based on activity levels and measured rates of output different sources of CO2 leave characteristic isotopic fingerprints that let us track where it came from. The recent changes in the ratios of C12/C13/C14 point to fossil fuels as a major and increasing source of atmospheric carbon.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
http://aquarium.ucsd.edu/climate/
You should check your sources. The percentage of CO2 produced by humans is more like 4% of the total and volcanoes account for about .03-.04%. Also, there was no recent change in volcanism to explain the observed warming or increasing CO2.
Beyond estimates based on activity levels and measured rates of output different sources of CO2 leave characteristic isotopic fingerprints that let us track where it came from. The recent changes in the ratios of C12/C13/C14 point to fossil fuels as a major and increasing source of atmospheric carbon.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
...and usually has more of a cooling effect than warming.
Greenbean, please indulge me just one more time, lol. Am I correct in assuming that carbon dioxide is the great evil? That is, man has been producing it at a so-called alarming rate and that it, along with other lessor gases, causes the blanket effect and aids in the increased warming. Am I also correct that carbon dioxide is present in the atmosphere at a level of less than 1 percent, with variations to that number for any number of different reasons, but still less that a percent? If that is the case, am I correct in thinking that the physics is so far over my head that I could never understand how something that small as a part of such a large system could be so allegedly devastating? Is the interaction of carbon dioxide to all of the other variables involved so powerful? I could easily understand if the amount of carbon dio. was like 50 percent, and we had increases taking it up to 60 or higher, like it becomes even visually understanding to someone like myself. But to say that we had a 30 percent increase in some that is less than one percent of something doesn't seem very powerful.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
Yep, CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere and not even the most abundant greenhouse gas (which is water vapor). It actually only makes up about .04% of the atmosphere. However, it's very efficient at trapping heat and accounts for as much as 1/4 of the greenhouse effect. We are causing increases in other gases like methane, but they make up even smaller proportions of the atmosphere and are less efficient at trapping heat.
To grasp how such a small constituent of the atmosphere can be so disproportionally important to the system you don't really even need to worry about the physics. Just think of your reef tank. Calcium makes up about the same percentage of seawater that CO2 makes up in the atmosphere. Imagine if you were to increase or decrease your calcium by 35%. Your alkalinity would go nuts, your pH would probably swing, and your corals, snails, and any other life that used Ca would be very unhappy if not dead. If we were talking about the ocean you would expect to see the same problems, plus some very important components of the plankton would be killed off, which would decrease fish populations and in turn even affect terrestrial animals including birds and people.
The same sort of thing can happen with the climate. There are all sorts of feedbacks built in that can magnify small changes. As a result, a small increase in CO2 can indirectly cause much more warming than the heat it can trap alone. As a very cartoonish example, when you heat the planet with CO2 you also increase the amount of water vapor. Some of that forms clouds and helps cool things off, but being a greenhouse gas it also traps heat. The small warming due to H2O+CO2 can cause melting of permafrost which releases more CO2 and methane. It also causes ice to melt, exposing the darker land or ocean underneath, which absorbs heat rather than reflecting it like the ice did.
To grasp how such a small constituent of the atmosphere can be so disproportionally important to the system you don't really even need to worry about the physics. Just think of your reef tank. Calcium makes up about the same percentage of seawater that CO2 makes up in the atmosphere. Imagine if you were to increase or decrease your calcium by 35%. Your alkalinity would go nuts, your pH would probably swing, and your corals, snails, and any other life that used Ca would be very unhappy if not dead. If we were talking about the ocean you would expect to see the same problems, plus some very important components of the plankton would be killed off, which would decrease fish populations and in turn even affect terrestrial animals including birds and people.
The same sort of thing can happen with the climate. There are all sorts of feedbacks built in that can magnify small changes. As a result, a small increase in CO2 can indirectly cause much more warming than the heat it can trap alone. As a very cartoonish example, when you heat the planet with CO2 you also increase the amount of water vapor. Some of that forms clouds and helps cool things off, but being a greenhouse gas it also traps heat. The small warming due to H2O+CO2 can cause melting of permafrost which releases more CO2 and methane. It also causes ice to melt, exposing the darker land or ocean underneath, which absorbs heat rather than reflecting it like the ice did.
How much has the earth warmed over the last 100 years? Worst case is about .7 degrees F. How much has the earth warmed since 1998? The temperature has gone down by .14 degrees F. At the same time C02 has skyrocketed according to alarmists.
Quite a solid corrrelation isn't it? Can anyone tell me what level of confidence, if any, is required on these climate models?
Quite a solid corrrelation isn't it? Can anyone tell me what level of confidence, if any, is required on these climate models?
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
Why don't you tell us what happened to global temp between 2000 and 2005? Do you understand the importance of scale and the problem of cherry picking time intervals yet?
Not according to alarmists, according to instruments that measure the CO2 levels. Quite a difference, don't you agree?
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
What?
greenbean36191
Premium Member
Wow, we're going in circles.
Sam, I'm sure you won't trust any numbers I give you, so do me a huge favor and plot out a trend line for the global temp anomaly for the years 1986-2006 and one for 1999-2006. Since you're intent on starting with 1998, go ahead and do a 5-year running average starting with 1998 too. Once you've applied the statistics tell me what the recent trend is again.
Sam, I'm sure you won't trust any numbers I give you, so do me a huge favor and plot out a trend line for the global temp anomaly for the years 1986-2006 and one for 1999-2006. Since you're intent on starting with 1998, go ahead and do a 5-year running average starting with 1998 too. Once you've applied the statistics tell me what the recent trend is again.
Last edited:
HippieSmell
Occupy Reef Central
Do you think you'll ever catch your tail?
greenbean36191
Premium Member
Talk about a straw man. I don't think anyone but you ever said anything about correlation at all, much less that it proves causation.
Over 100 years ago it was predicted based on the quantifiable physics of greenhouse gases that there should be a relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temp. We also know from estimated carbon budgets and observations that we've significantly changed the CO2 concentrations, so we should expect to see warming. Now it's obvious in the observational temp records that the predictions held true. The fact that we can reproduce the observed trends using physics based models suggest that we have a pretty good grasp on the causes and the physics behind them.
There is a pretty strong correlation between CO2 and temp. It's not a perfect correlation, but when you use real-world data you never get a perfect correlation even for simple relationships (which CO2/ temp isn't). It would be a huge surprise if you did get a perfect correlation between CO2 and temp given that CO2 is only one of many forcings that affects temp. In any event the correlation between the two can never been used as a scientific argument that CO2 causes warming because we know that increased CO2 can also be an effect of warming.
Over 100 years ago it was predicted based on the quantifiable physics of greenhouse gases that there should be a relationship between atmospheric CO2 and global temp. We also know from estimated carbon budgets and observations that we've significantly changed the CO2 concentrations, so we should expect to see warming. Now it's obvious in the observational temp records that the predictions held true. The fact that we can reproduce the observed trends using physics based models suggest that we have a pretty good grasp on the causes and the physics behind them.
There is a pretty strong correlation between CO2 and temp. It's not a perfect correlation, but when you use real-world data you never get a perfect correlation even for simple relationships (which CO2/ temp isn't). It would be a huge surprise if you did get a perfect correlation between CO2 and temp given that CO2 is only one of many forcings that affects temp. In any event the correlation between the two can never been used as a scientific argument that CO2 causes warming because we know that increased CO2 can also be an effect of warming.
greenbean36191
Premium Member
And just for grins and giggles I plotted out the trends for you. I did it with the CRUTEM3 (land) and HadCRUT3 (land and sea) temp anomaly observational data. Using both datasets I got an increasing trend from 1986-1997, from 1999-2006, and across the whole interval from 1986-2006. In fact, slope of the trend line after 1998 was more than from 1986-1997 (so a faster rate of increase). The only way I was able to get a decreasing trend line starting with 1998 was to stop at 2002 and even then the decrease was extremely small.
Here are the graphs for the HadCRUT3 data.
This one shows the trend line for 1986-2006. The red line is a 5 year running average.
This one shows the trendline from 1999-2006. With 1998 included the slope changes to 0.008 (still positive).
I also used the same data and plotted it out against atmospheric CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa for 1986-2003. You get an R-squared of 0.63. That means that changes in which of the two you assign as the independent variable (which would be CO2 based on the physics) could explain as much as 63% of the variability in dependent variable during that period. For 1999-2003 it's 0.81 (or 81%).
Here are the graphs for the HadCRUT3 data.
This one shows the trend line for 1986-2006. The red line is a 5 year running average.
This one shows the trendline from 1999-2006. With 1998 included the slope changes to 0.008 (still positive).
I also used the same data and plotted it out against atmospheric CO2 measurements from Mauna Loa for 1986-2003. You get an R-squared of 0.63. That means that changes in which of the two you assign as the independent variable (which would be CO2 based on the physics) could explain as much as 63% of the variability in dependent variable during that period. For 1999-2003 it's 0.81 (or 81%).
New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
Posted By Marc Morano â€"œ Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov â€"œ 4:44 PM ET
Washington DC â€"œ An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust†and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.†The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.
“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,†declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop†the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,†was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. (LINK)
“Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of ~ 1.0 K by 2100 A.D.†Dr. Wilson wrote in a note to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on August 19, 2007. Wilson, a former operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore MD, was referring to the trillions of dollars that would be spent under such international global warming treaties like the Kyoto Protocol.
“Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too high i.e. 2 â€"œ 4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase for a doubling of CO2,†he added.
Climate fears reduced to ‘children’s games’
Other scientists are echoing Wilson’s analysis. Former Harvard physicist Dr. Lubos Motl said the new study has reduced proponents of man-made climate fears to “playing the children’s game to scare each other.â€Â
“Recall that most of the 1.1 degree - about 0.7 degrees - has already occurred since the beginning of the industrial era. This fact itself is an indication that the climate sensitivity is unlikely to be much greater than 1 Celsius degree: the effect of most of the doubling has already been made and it led to 0.7 K of warming,†Motl wrote in an August 17, 2007 blog post. (LINK)
“By the end of the (CO2) doubling i.e. 560 ppm (parts per million) expected slightly before (the year) 2100 -- assuming a business-as-usual continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for some time -- Schwartz and others would expect 0.4 C of extra warming only - a typical fluctuation that occurs within four months and certainly nothing that the politicians should pay attention to,†Motl explained.
“As far as I can say, all the people who end up with 2 or even 3 Celsius degrees for the climate sensitivity are just playing the children's game to scare each other, as [MIT climate scientist] Richard Lindzen says, by making artificial biased assumptions about positive feedbacks. There is no reasonable, balanced, and self-consistent work that would lead to such a relatively high sensitivity,†Motl concluded.
Overturning IPCC consensus ‘in one fell swoop’
The new study was also touted as “overturning the UN IPCC 'consensus’ in one fell swoop†by the American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI) Joel Schwartz in an August 17, 2007 blog post. (LINK)
“New research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) assumes,†wrote AEI’s Schwartz, who hold a master’s degree in planetary science from the California Institute of Technology.
The study’s “result is 63% lower than the IPCC’s estimate of 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 (2.0â€"œ4.5 degrees C, 2SD range). Right now we’re about 41% above the estimated pre-industrial CO2 level of 270 ppm. At the current rate of increase of about 0.55% per year, CO2 will double around 2070. Based on Schwartz’s results, we should expect about a 0.6 degrees C additional increase in temperature between now and 2070 due to this additional CO2. That doesn’t seem particularly alarming,†AEI’s Schwartz explained.
“In other words, there’s hardly any additional warming ‘in the pipeline’ from previous greenhouse gas emissions. This is in contrast to the IPCC, which predicts that the Earth’s average temperature will rise an additional 0.6 degrees C during the 21st Century even if greenhouse gas concentrations stopped increasing,†he added.
“Along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, [this] new study belies Al Gore’s claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if Schwartz’s results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC’s scientific ‘consensus’, the environmentalists’ climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world’s environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?†AEI’s Schwartz concluded.
UK officially admits: Global warming has stopped!
Recent scientific studies may make 2007 go down in history as the "tipping point" of man-made global warming fears. A progression of peer-reviewed studies have been published which serve to debunk the United Nations, former Vice President Al Gore, and the media engineered “consensus†on climate change.
Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works (LINK), noted in a June 18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped.
“The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 %),†(LINK)
In August 2007, the UK Met Office was finally forced to concede the obvious: global warming has stopped. (LINK) The UK Met Office acknowledged the flat lining of global temperatures, but in an apparent attempt to keep stoking man-made climate alarm, the Met Office is now promoting more unproven dire computer model projections of the future. They now claim climate computer models predict “global warming will begin in earnest in 2009†because greenhouse emissions will then overtake natural climate variability.
Southern Hemisphere is COOLING
UN scientist Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist and an expert IPCC reviewer in 2007, explained on August 6, 2007 that the Southern Hemisphere is cooling. “In the Southern Hemisphere, the land-area mean temperature has slowly but surely declined in the last few years. The city of Buenos Aires in Argentina received several centimeters of snowfall in early July, and the last time it snowed in Buenos Aires was in 1918! Most of Australia experienced one of its coldest months of June this year. Several other locations in the Southern Hemisphere have experienced lower temperatures in the last few years. Further, the sea surface temperatures over world oceans are slowly declining since mid-1998, according to a recent world-wide analysis of ocean surface temperatures," Dr. Khandekar explained. (LINK)
Posted By Marc Morano â€"œ Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov â€"œ 4:44 PM ET
Washington DC â€"œ An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming “bites the dust†and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be “falling apart.†The latest study to cast doubt on climate fears finds that even a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would not have the previously predicted dire impacts on global temperatures. This new study is not unique, as a host of recent peer-reviewed studies have cast a chill on global warming fears.
“Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming bites the dust,†declared astronomer Dr. Ian Wilson after reviewing the new study which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Another scientist said the peer-reviewed study overturned “in one fell swoop†the climate fears promoted by the UN and former Vice President Al Gore. The study entitled “Heat Capacity, Time Constant, and Sensitivity of Earth’s Climate System,†was authored by Brookhaven National Lab scientist Stephen Schwartz. (LINK)
“Effectively, this (new study) means that the global economy will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of ~ 1.0 K by 2100 A.D.†Dr. Wilson wrote in a note to the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee on August 19, 2007. Wilson, a former operations astronomer at the Hubble Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore MD, was referring to the trillions of dollars that would be spent under such international global warming treaties like the Kyoto Protocol.
“Previously, I have indicated that the widely accepted values for temperature increase associated with a doubling of CO2 were far too high i.e. 2 â€"œ 4.5 Kelvin. This new peer-reviewed paper claims a value of 1.1 +/- 0.5 K increase for a doubling of CO2,†he added.
Climate fears reduced to ‘children’s games’
Other scientists are echoing Wilson’s analysis. Former Harvard physicist Dr. Lubos Motl said the new study has reduced proponents of man-made climate fears to “playing the children’s game to scare each other.â€Â
“Recall that most of the 1.1 degree - about 0.7 degrees - has already occurred since the beginning of the industrial era. This fact itself is an indication that the climate sensitivity is unlikely to be much greater than 1 Celsius degree: the effect of most of the doubling has already been made and it led to 0.7 K of warming,†Motl wrote in an August 17, 2007 blog post. (LINK)
“By the end of the (CO2) doubling i.e. 560 ppm (parts per million) expected slightly before (the year) 2100 -- assuming a business-as-usual continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for some time -- Schwartz and others would expect 0.4 C of extra warming only - a typical fluctuation that occurs within four months and certainly nothing that the politicians should pay attention to,†Motl explained.
“As far as I can say, all the people who end up with 2 or even 3 Celsius degrees for the climate sensitivity are just playing the children's game to scare each other, as [MIT climate scientist] Richard Lindzen says, by making artificial biased assumptions about positive feedbacks. There is no reasonable, balanced, and self-consistent work that would lead to such a relatively high sensitivity,†Motl concluded.
Overturning IPCC consensus ‘in one fell swoop’
The new study was also touted as “overturning the UN IPCC 'consensus’ in one fell swoop†by the American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI) Joel Schwartz in an August 17, 2007 blog post. (LINK)
“New research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) assumes,†wrote AEI’s Schwartz, who hold a master’s degree in planetary science from the California Institute of Technology.
The study’s “result is 63% lower than the IPCC’s estimate of 3 degrees C for a doubling of CO2 (2.0â€"œ4.5 degrees C, 2SD range). Right now we’re about 41% above the estimated pre-industrial CO2 level of 270 ppm. At the current rate of increase of about 0.55% per year, CO2 will double around 2070. Based on Schwartz’s results, we should expect about a 0.6 degrees C additional increase in temperature between now and 2070 due to this additional CO2. That doesn’t seem particularly alarming,†AEI’s Schwartz explained.
“In other words, there’s hardly any additional warming ‘in the pipeline’ from previous greenhouse gas emissions. This is in contrast to the IPCC, which predicts that the Earth’s average temperature will rise an additional 0.6 degrees C during the 21st Century even if greenhouse gas concentrations stopped increasing,†he added.
“Along with dozens of other studies in the scientific literature, [this] new study belies Al Gore’s claim that there is no legitimate scholarly alternative to climate catastrophism. Indeed, if Schwartz’s results are correct, that alone would be enough to overturn in one fell swoop the IPCC’s scientific ‘consensus’, the environmentalists’ climate hysteria, and the political pretext for the energy-restriction policies that have become so popular with the world’s environmental regulators, elected officials, and corporations. The question is, will anyone in the mainstream media notice?†AEI’s Schwartz concluded.
UK officially admits: Global warming has stopped!
Recent scientific studies may make 2007 go down in history as the "tipping point" of man-made global warming fears. A progression of peer-reviewed studies have been published which serve to debunk the United Nations, former Vice President Al Gore, and the media engineered “consensus†on climate change.
Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter, who has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works (LINK), noted in a June 18, 2007 essay that global warming has stopped.
“The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 %),†(LINK)
In August 2007, the UK Met Office was finally forced to concede the obvious: global warming has stopped. (LINK) The UK Met Office acknowledged the flat lining of global temperatures, but in an apparent attempt to keep stoking man-made climate alarm, the Met Office is now promoting more unproven dire computer model projections of the future. They now claim climate computer models predict “global warming will begin in earnest in 2009†because greenhouse emissions will then overtake natural climate variability.
Southern Hemisphere is COOLING
UN scientist Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada scientist and an expert IPCC reviewer in 2007, explained on August 6, 2007 that the Southern Hemisphere is cooling. “In the Southern Hemisphere, the land-area mean temperature has slowly but surely declined in the last few years. The city of Buenos Aires in Argentina received several centimeters of snowfall in early July, and the last time it snowed in Buenos Aires was in 1918! Most of Australia experienced one of its coldest months of June this year. Several other locations in the Southern Hemisphere have experienced lower temperatures in the last few years. Further, the sea surface temperatures over world oceans are slowly declining since mid-1998, according to a recent world-wide analysis of ocean surface temperatures," Dr. Khandekar explained. (LINK)
chrissreef
New member
Interesting website I found in Business Week. I'm sure it's biased a bit but it has some interesting points. I still think coal is the biggest problem, not oil.
http://www.architecture2030.org/home.html
http://www.architecture2030.org/current_situation/stop_coal.html
http://www.architecture2030.org/current_situation/coastal_impact.html
http://www.architecture2030.org/home.html
http://www.architecture2030.org/current_situation/stop_coal.html
http://www.architecture2030.org/current_situation/coastal_impact.html
greenbean36191
Premium Member
Sam, that sort of blog post really scares me because a lot of people find them convincing. For such a long post, there's not a single logically valid claim made. I think the fact that this sort of argument is convincing to the general public really says a lot about the state of scientific literacy. I really don't know where to start in pointing out the errors.
Furthermore, science is all about replication. A single paper saying that everyone else missed something does not mean that everyone else was wrong. It simply means that the new information needs to be investigated more to confirm who is right.
Beyond the fact that the rules of science haven't changed, it should raise a red flag when every paper that differs from the IPCC report (even if the differences are statistically insignificant) is touted as the one what will overturn everything.
On to the actual content:
The thing that really irks me the most about these blog posts is the blatant misrepresentation of what the authors state and what can be concluded from that.
This "revolutionary" paper by Schwartz is a great example of the disconnect between what the author says and what bloggers say. The paper makes no claim that the IPCC data is wrong or that the data produced is better. It's simply an experiment to see if a simpler climate modeling process can be used to get similar results. It's extremely ironic that skeptics are constantly complaining that existing models are too simple in how they model clouds and ocean currents, yet they cite this paper which treats the entire planet, land, sea, and sky, as if they have homogeneous properties and assumes a linear relationship between CO2 and temp. This method also can't reproduce real world data like more complex models can, which suggest that it's far from accurate. The author also even states that the upper edge of the predicted range would result in catastrophic warming, which is contrary to the bloggers' statements that it predicts insignificant warming.
Statements like this from "scientists" should immediately set off the BS alarm. Anthropogenic warming is a scientific theory, not a hypothesis. By definition it cannot "bit the dust" or "overturned in one fell swoop." At most, theories are revised with new evidence. They're only overturned extremely rarely and doing so requires disproving all of supporting evidence. Simply showing that one or two pieces of evidence are imperfect doesn't do that.
Furthermore, science is all about replication. A single paper saying that everyone else missed something does not mean that everyone else was wrong. It simply means that the new information needs to be investigated more to confirm who is right.
Beyond the fact that the rules of science haven't changed, it should raise a red flag when every paper that differs from the IPCC report (even if the differences are statistically insignificant) is touted as the one what will overturn everything.
On to the actual content:
The thing that really irks me the most about these blog posts is the blatant misrepresentation of what the authors state and what can be concluded from that.
This "revolutionary" paper by Schwartz is a great example of the disconnect between what the author says and what bloggers say. The paper makes no claim that the IPCC data is wrong or that the data produced is better. It's simply an experiment to see if a simpler climate modeling process can be used to get similar results. It's extremely ironic that skeptics are constantly complaining that existing models are too simple in how they model clouds and ocean currents, yet they cite this paper which treats the entire planet, land, sea, and sky, as if they have homogeneous properties and assumes a linear relationship between CO2 and temp. This method also can't reproduce real world data like more complex models can, which suggest that it's far from accurate. The author also even states that the upper edge of the predicted range would result in catastrophic warming, which is contrary to the bloggers' statements that it predicts insignificant warming.
He can claim this all he wants, but that doesn't make it true. The truth is in the data. I've already addressed this two or three times and even plotted out the data myself and I still haven't seen a statistically valid explanation for how to arrive at either a decreasing or static trend over land or water.
They are factored in and it doesn't erase the warming. Playing by those rules also throws the "no warming since 1998" argument out the window.
- Status
