Page 5 of 118 FirstFirst ... 345671555105 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 3524

Thread: General AGW discussion thread

  1. #121
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,167
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    If the AWG (C02) hypothesis was correct, why is the planet now starting to cool?

    The warmest year on "record" was 1998 (.5C above mean). 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 were cooler than 1998.

    It is a fact that planetary temperatures are no longer increasing.
    Cherry-picking one year does not allow for that conclusion. The five-year average has continued to increase steadily. And 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 were all warmer than any year before 1998, which doesn't sound like cooling to me.

    It has been stated that the 20th century warming is 90% AWG and 10% solar.

    If the planet cools by more than 0.05C does that invalidate the AWG CO2 theory of 10% Solar 90% AWG?

    What would invalidate the AWG CO2 theory?
    - If the five-year average temperature starts going down while CO2 levels continue to go up and there's no other factor to account for the change.

    - If someone can come up with a model that explains the last hundred years of warming without having AWG CO2 as a significant factor. (Well, actually that would be a first step. One would then have to decide between that model and all the models that can only account for the warming if AWG CO2 is factored in.)
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,916
    In reply to ToSeek's Comment: http://www.bautforum.com/general-sci...ml#post1403865 Cherry-picking one year does not allow for that conclusion. The five-year average has continued to increase steadily. And 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 were all warmer than any year before 1998, which doesn't sound like cooling to me.
    Your statement does not address the scientific issues. Published proxy data supports the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was as warm or warmer than 1998.

    Indications Planet has reached a Plateau and is now Cooling
    Based on the data the planet has stopped warming. i.e. It has reached a plateau. The years after 1998 are not warmer than 1998. i.e For 9 years the planet's temperature has reached a plateau.

    There are early indications that the planet has started to cool. 2008 is the 10th warmest year in the 20th century. The Antarctic seasonal sea ice is 30% above the long term average. The arctic seasonal sea ice is close to normal in area and I would expect based on current very cold arctic temperatures to be recovering in thickness.

    Planet was warmed and cooled before
    As CO2 levels did not rise in 15th century there is likely another first order climate forcing function that can warm the planet.

    There is also the little ice age to explain. i.e. My point is that something is causing the earth to warm and cool in cycles. CO2 follows rather than leads these cyclic changes.

    Challenges to the Magnitude of the CO2 mechanism & Sign/Magnitude of Feedbacks
    There have been direct scientific challenges, in published papers, that question the validity of the CO2 forcing mechanism (basically the issue is whether CO2 saturates. Tropical tropospheric temperatures do not match what is predicted by the models.) and the base assumptions used in the the General Climate Models. (The issue is are the climate feedbacks in response to a forcing change positive or negative. If feedback is negative then the planet’s response to a doubling of CO2 even with the high IPCC estimate is only 0.5C.).
    Last edited by William; 2009-Jan-07 at 12:56 PM. Reason: grammar

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,413
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Planet was warmed and cooled before
    As CO2 levels did not rise in 15th century there is likely another first order climate forcing function that can warm the planet.
    Which is rather irrelevant to the question of the source of the current forcing, when it's shown that the factors that forced that warming period isn't present now.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by ToSeek View Post
    ...
    - If someone can come up with a model that explains the last hundred years of warming without having AWG CO2 as a significant factor. (Well, actually that would be a first step. One would then have to decide between that model and all the models that can only account for the warming if AWG CO2 is factored in.)
    A good fit can be found with the length of the solar cycle. See:

    Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate
    by Christensen and Lassen
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/254/5032/698

    Or you can get it from the Friends of Science here:
    http://www.friendsofscience.org/asse...hr_Lassen-.pdf

    And the co2 seems to fit to the 800 to 1200 year lag (seen in the proxy data) behind the MWP.

    Jim

  5. #125
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,413
    That's a correlation to a data set which is only known for the last 130 ears, it doesn't have any actual explanation for the correlation.

    To me it sounds a bit like the correlation between the ration of length of the second and third finger, and whether you're homosexual.

    It reads like the result of looking at all the data sets they could find which didn't involve without CO2 and picking the one that had the best correlation
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    That's a correlation to a data set which is only known for the last 130 ears, it doesn't have any actual explanation for the correlation.

    To me it sounds a bit like the correlation between the ration of length of the second and third finger, and whether you're homosexual.

    It reads like the result of looking at all the data sets they could find which didn't involve without CO2 and picking the one that had the best correlation
    I agree, because we don’t know how the solar dynamo works. But the correlation is high and it is possible the sun could be the cause. But as you said it’s just a correlation.

    I could come up with a causal mechanism and call it a model, but then that would be ATM under this sites rules.

    Also on the same note all of the models of co2 are just that; models. The IPCC says the odds are 90% that the warming of the last 30 years is caused by co2.

    Actually ToSeek’s comment was:

    Quote Originally Posted by ToSeek

    - If someone can come up with a model that explains the last hundred years of warming without having AWG CO2 as a significant factor. (Well, actually that would be a first step. One would then have to decide between that model and all the models that can only account for the warming if AWG CO2 is factored in.)
    my bold
    And if you look at the correlation the solar cycle fits for 100 years and the co2 correlation only fits for 30 years.

    Jim

  7. #127
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    18,413
    Quote Originally Posted by orionjim View Post
    And if you look at the correlation the solar cycle fits for 100 years and the co2 correlation only fits for 30 years.

    Jim
    Actually the models of the influence of total CO2 correlates nicely for much longer than that when the models includes the fact that climate is influenced by multiple factors of which CO2 is only one.

    Trying to say that modern models claim that CO2 is the only factor influencing climate is a strawman to make them easy to refute by referring to earlier changes that clearly wasn't CO2 driven.
    What the modern models actually do is explain both the earlier climate changes and the current ones and showing that the current changes looks like they're forced by changes in total CO2 (and CH4) concentrations.

    That's the straw man william tried to set up in his last post.
    __________________________________________________
    Reductionist and proud of it.

    Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn. Benjamin Franklin
    Chase after the truth like all hell and you'll free yourself, even though you never touch its coat tails. Clarence Darrow
    A person who won't read has no advantage over one who can't read. Mark Twain

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,916
    In reply to Henrik Olsen: http://www.bautforum.com/general-sci...ml#post1404032

    CO2 Mechanism
    There are multiple fundamental issues with the CO2 mechanism.

    The planet’s 20th century warming does not directly follow the CO2 rise. There is the plateau and very cold winters in the 1970’s. There is a sharp increase in temperature in the 1990’s and then 1999 to date the planet’s temperature has stopped rising and now appears to be cooling.

    There is other data and analysis that questions the validity of the magnitude of the CO2 forcing mechanism for increasing CO2 levels. (i.e. There is evidence that indicates the CO2 warming mechanism saturates at low concentrations and/or that the planetary feedback response to any forcing change is negative rather than positive.)

    There are multiple cases where CO2 was been higher or lower without correlation of planetary temperature. There is roughly a lag of 800 years on glacial termination before CO2 levels rise.

    Abrupt Cooling
    There are in the long term climate record semi periodic abrupt planetary temperature drops of 2C to 4C.

    Look at the problem from a different standpoint. Assume that in response to an event that is connected with the current solar changes that the planet starts to abruptly cool. Will humans take action to stop abrupt global cooling? There have been 22 glacial/interglacial cycles. This is not an academic question.

    Environmental Protection & Sensible Policy
    I am completely in agreement there is a limit to consumption and the number of people the planet will support. With that constraint in mind policy should consider that CO2 is not a pollutant.

    The statements in comment 104 http://www.bautforum.com/general-sci...ml#post1403991 are correct. If CO2 does not result in increased global warming then increased CO2 is positive to life on the planet not negative. C02 levels were very low prior to human produced CO2. C02 is not a pollutant.

  9. #129
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    602
    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post
    Actually the models of the influence of total CO2 correlates nicely for much longer than that when the models includes the fact that climate is influenced by multiple factors of which CO2 is only one.
    I agree. CO2 correlates for 1000’s of years. It lags temperature by 800 to 1200 years, nicely. I think that’s what William was trying to show with McIntyre and McKitrick’s papers. Doing away with the MWP is important to put the focus only on CO2 making it the driver. If you allow the MWP then the rise in CO2 would be caused by the MWP according to the data (it’s been about 1000 years).

    Quote Originally Posted by HenrikOlsen View Post

    Trying to say that modern models claim that CO2 is the only factor influencing climate is a strawman to make them easy to refute by referring to earlier changes that clearly wasn't CO2 driven.
    What the modern models actually do is explain both the earlier climate changes and the current ones and showing that the current changes looks like they're forced by changes in total CO2 (and CH4) concentrations.
    I have a good idea of the models that are being used and I understand they are driven by multiple factors and I understand how they can combine creating the greenhouse gases. I certainly wouldn’t argue with them. What differs between the last 30 years and all of the previous history is, like you said, that now CO2 has to be the main driver to increase temperature.

    I only jumped in to say; “don’t underestimate the sun”.


    Jim

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,916
    I started looking at this problem from the perspective of trying to find out what was causing very abrupt climate changes, that were found in the Greenland Ice Sheet data.

    The finding of abrupt climate changes was not expected. The abrupt climate changes and the glacial/interglacial cycle itself is not explained. The forcing appears to be semi-periodic and affects the enter planet.

    I agree with Jim it appears we have not seen all of the phases of the sun.

    “Ice-core evidence of abrupt climate changes” by Richard Alley

    http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full.pdf+html

    As the world slid into and out of the last ice age, the general cooling and warming trends were punctuated by abrupt changes. Climate shifts up to half as large as the entire difference between ice age and modern conditions occurred over hemispheric or broader regions in mere years to decades. Such abrupt changes have been absent during the few key millennia when agriculture and industry have arisen. The speed, size, and extent of these abrupt changes required a reappraisal of climate stability. Records of these changes are especially clear in high resolution ice cores. Ice cores can preserve histories of local climate (snowfall, temperature), regional (wind-blown dust, sea salt, etc.), and broader (trace gases in the air) conditions, on a common time scale, demonstrating synchrony of climate changes over broad regions.
    Coolings were achieved in a series of steep ramps or steps and warmings in single steps. The more dramatic of the warmings have involved approx. 8°C warming (8,25) and approx. 23 increases in snow accumulation (9), several-fold or larger drops in windblown materials (17), and approx. 50% increase in methane, indicating large changes in global wetland area (5, 24).
    For the best-characterized warming, the end of the Younger Dryas cold interval approx. 11,500 years ago, the transition in many ice-core variables was achieved in three steps, each spanning approx. 5 years and in total covering '40 years (26). However, most of the change occurred in the middle of these steps. The warming as recorded in gas isotopes occurred in decades or less (8). The most direct interpretation of the accumulation-rate record is that snowfall doubled over 3 years and nearly doubled in 1 year (9). Several records show enhanced variability near this and other transitions, including ‘‘flickering’’ behavior in which climate variables bounced between their ‘‘cold’’ level and their ‘‘warm’’ level before settling in one of them (27).
    One abrupt century-long cold event approx. 8,200 years ago (my comment 2C temperature drop in less than a decade.) is prominent in Greenland and other records and affected methane significantly (36). Temperatures before and after this event in Greenland and many other regions were slightly higher than recently, showing that warmth is not a guarantee of climate stability.

  11. #131
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    14,315
    Quote Originally Posted by lomiller1 View Post
    On the internet anyone can say anything they want, you can just look at random bloggers like McKitrick...
    That's an ad-hom.

    I read his paper, and found some of his arguements compelling, particularly the following:

    If the world could warm so much on such a short time scale as a result of natural causes, surely the 20th century climate change could simply be a natural effect as well. And the present climate change could hardly be considered unusually hazardous if even larger climate changes happened in the recent past, and we are simply fluctuating in the middle of what nature regularly dishes out.

  12. #132
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,916
    There are indications that the 2008/2009 winter is returning to 1970’s cold.

    As noted in this article there are currently very low temperatures in the Arctic. Later in the winter the very cold Arctic air moves south and then creates ice storms and blizzards in areas that normally have a mild winter.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/n...2008news.shtml

    Over the last few days high pressure has been continuing to build across Siberia bringing unusually cold weather. (My comment: The loss of heat which cools the atmosphere creates the high pressure region. The high pressure is a result of the cold weather not the cause.)

    On Wednesday weather warnings were issued by Russia’s Emergency Situations Ministry after forecasters predicted a fall of temperature to –55C
    (-67F). On Saturday night the temperature in Ojmjakon, Siberia actually fell to -60.2C (-76F). January temperatures across the larger Siberian cities normally range from –15C to –39C (5 to -38F).

    Over the last few days this cold air building over the Polar regions of Canada and Siberia, has now been sent southwards across the States in a phenomenon commonly known as the “Siberian Express”.
    Comment:
    I have been looking for an observed change that might be a hint to what could be causing the planet to cool (assuming the planet is cooling) and the mechanism(s) that would result in significantly colder winters and summers. (Outside of the normal variance.)

    As noted in this article, the height of the planet’s ionosphere has recently shrunk by roughly 35% in the nighttime and 16% in the daytime. It is interesting that UV changes in the solar cycle cannot explain the change. (i.e. The change in nighttime is greater than in the day.)

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...tmosphere.html

    CINDI’s first discovery was, however, that the ionosphere was not where it had been expected to be. During the first months of CINDI operations the transition between the ionosphere and space was found to be at about 260 miles (420 km) altitude during the nighttime, barely rising above 500 miles (800 km) during the day. These altitudes were extraordinarily low compared with the more typical values of 400 miles (640 km) during the nighttime and 600 miles (960 km) during the day.

  13. #133
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by dmr81 View Post
    The warming trend has not stopped. In noisy data of this sort it is expected that the noise will mask the trend for short periods, as demonstrated here.
    From Tamino's blog:

    "Let’s put some of this to practical use; let’s create some artificial data,"

    I guess he just couldn't bring himself to use the 'real' data.

    So, what does this 'noise' consist of? A reversal in the 60 year quasiperiodic Pacific Decadal Oscillation perhaps? Solar minimum? Ah but of course, the solar cycle only makes a difference of ~0.03C doesn't it, so that's out.

    So if it is the negative phase of the PDO (evidenced by the incidence of a strong La Nina last winter, and another brewing up now back to back with it), how much of the warming during the preceding years will the proponents of the CO2 warming theory ascribe to it's 30 year long positive phase?

    or is it all just noise?

  14. #134
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    11,557
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    There are indications that the 2008/2009 winter is returning to 1970’s cold.

    As noted in this article there are currently very low temperatures in the Arctic. Later in the winter the very cold Arctic air moves south and then creates ice storms and blizzards in areas that normally have a mild winter.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/n...2008news.shtml
    But weather isn't climate. It was cold here in early December, then it warmed up and has been warmer since. It must be evidence of global warming, right?
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  15. #135
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,916
    Quote Originally Posted by Ara Pacis View Post
    But weather isn't climate. It was cold here in early December, then it warmed up and has been warmer since. It must be evidence of global warming, right?
    William said: There are indications that the 2008/2009 winter is returning to 1970’s cold.

    As noted in this article there are currently very low temperatures in the Arctic. Later in the winter the very cold Arctic air moves south and then creates ice storms and blizzards in areas that normally have a mild winter.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/n...2008news.shtml

    Over the last few days high pressure has been continuing to build across Siberia bringing unusually cold weather. (My comment: The loss of heat which cools the atmosphere creates the high pressure region. The high pressure is a result of the cold weather not the cause.)

    On Wednesday weather warnings were issued by Russia’s Emergency Situations Ministry after forecasters predicted a fall of temperature to –55C
    (-67F). On Saturday night the temperature in Ojmjakon, Siberia actually fell to -60.2C (-76F). January temperatures across the larger Siberian cities normally range from –15C to –39C (5 to -38F).

    Over the last few days this cold air building over the Polar regions of Canada and Siberia, has now been sent southwards across the States in a phenomenon commonly known as the “Siberian Express”.
    Record cold winter temperatures require a cause.

    My point is there is a normal expected range of temperatures for each location for each month. When temperatures fall outside of that range for large areas of the planet that indicates something has changed.

    There are other indications that the planet is cooling. Increase sea ice in the Antarctic. Arctic sea has in terms of area recovered to close to normal.

    Has anything changed would could explain the record cold temperatures? My other point is this article which notes the height of the planet’s ionosphere has recently shrunk by roughly 35% in the nighttime and 16% in the daytime. It is interesting that UV changes in the solar cycle cannot explain the change. (i.e. The change in nighttime is greater than in the day.)

    Also interesting is that the number of electrons in the ionosphere is a factor of 10 less than that predicted by the models.

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...tmosphere.html

    CINDI’s first discovery was, however, that the ionosphere was not where it had been expected to be. During the first months of CINDI operations the transition between the ionosphere and space was found to be at about 260 miles (420 km) altitude during the nighttime, barely rising above 500 miles (800 km) during the day. These altitudes were extraordinarily low compared with the more typical values of 400 miles (640 km) during the nighttime and 600 miles (960 km) during the day.

  16. #136
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Arctic sea has in terms of area recovered to close to normal.

    Has anything changed would could explain the record cold temperatures? My other point is this article which notes the height of the planet’s ionosphere has recently shrunk by roughly 35% in the nighttime and 16% in the daytime. It is interesting that UV changes in the solar cycle cannot explain the change. (i.e. The change in nighttime is greater than in the day.)

    Also interesting is that the number of electrons in the ionosphere is a factor of 10 less than that predicted by the models.

    http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/fea...tmosphere.html
    To be fair William, there is only so much room in the Arctic ocean so it's not unexpected that ice gets to average levels in the winter. What is different this year though, is ice thickness, which has been building much more rapidly according to argo buoy data. Thicknesses of 1.6m were being recorded at the end of october. Those sorts of readings from the same area the year before weren't achieved until January. I predict the spring melt will be later and less extensive.

    The issue with the ionosphere is very interesting. There is speculation that the very strong solar erruptions in 1998 created a 'bubble' in the solar wind which ripped away a chunk of our ionosphere. I haven't found solid information on this, but there certainly has been a step change downwards in geomagnetic activity since the end of 2005.

  17. #137
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    14,315
    Quote Originally Posted by Ara Pacis View Post
    But weather isn't climate. It was cold here in early December, then it warmed up and has been warmer since. It must be evidence of global warming, right?
    Either that, or you have enough sense to come in out of the snow and sit yourself before a nice fire!

  18. #138
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    29,167
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Your statement does not address the scientific issues. Published proxy data supports the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was as warm or warmer than 1998.
    Why are you all of a sudden bringing in the Medieval Warm Period when that was not mentioned in the post I'm responding to?

    Indications Planet has reached a Plateau and is now Cooling
    Based on the data the planet has stopped warming. i.e. It has reached a plateau. The years after 1998 are not warmer than 1998. i.e For 9 years the planet's temperature has reached a plateau.
    Again, your conclusion is unjustified. 1998 is an outlier due to a strong El Nino. If you ignore 1998, you can see a steady warming trend both before and after. If you incorporate 1998 in some appropriate way, like doing five-year averaging, you see the same thing. There is no plateau in the data.

    There are early indications that the planet has started to cool. 2008 is the 10th warmest year in the 20th century.
    Completely untrue. 2008 does come in 10th, but all the years warmer than it occurred since 1997, so very few of them were in the 20th century. Reference.

    The Antarctic seasonal sea ice is 30% above the long term average. The arctic seasonal sea ice is close to normal in area and I would expect based on current very cold arctic temperatures to be recovering in thickness.
    Wrong again. Arctic sea ice right now is about 2 million km^2 less than the 1979-2000 average. Reference.
    Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

  19. #139
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    location
    Posts
    11,557
    Quote Originally Posted by William View Post
    Record cold winter temperatures require a cause.

    My point is there is a normal expected range of temperatures for each location for each month. When temperatures fall outside of that range for large areas of the planet that indicates something has changed.
    My refrigerator/freezer is a net producer of heat, yet it keeps my peas frozen. The cause is that the warmth is pumped to a different location.

    I'd be interested in knowing if there is a circulation that can perform this function on the Earth. Is it the thermohaline circulation or ENSO or something that that would mitigate heat flow to the arctic while absorbing or redirecting the heat that would go there instead? I ask for information, since I'm not that well versed in climatology. Anyone?
    Et tu BAUT? Quantum mutatus ab illo.

  20. #140
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,074
    How is the average temperature of the Earth calculated? I have been told that several averages are taken using different methods, and then averaged together. Is this true?

  21. #141
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Kebsis View Post
    How is the average temperature of the Earth calculated? I have been told that several averages are taken using different methods, and then averaged together. Is this true?
    The short answer is we don't know.
    Despite being publicly funded bodies, NASA?Giss and Hadley Met won't reveal their methods or details of data selectivity. Despite attempts to force them to reveal them under the freedom of information laws in the UK and US.

    Phil Jones at Hadley famously said to an enquiring scientist something like:
    "Why would I want to share the results of 25 years of work with you when you'll probably want to try to find something wrong with it."

    The satellite teams are more open but no-one but them understands the equations.

    For more in depth info and discussion I'd rcommend the climateaudit.org site.
    Steve MacIntyre has been having some success with replicating the Giss record. It ain't pretty.

    National records seem to be more reliable over the longer term, but of course are not perfect proxies for global temperature. Nonetheless, over long time frames (Central England Temperature runs from the late 1600's) they may contain a valuable indicator of long term global trends.

  22. #142
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    1,804
    The reason that scientists don't look at paranormal phenomena is that the field is so heavily populated with cranks and charlatans that any serious scientists risk being overlooked and dismissed as cranks and charlatans. Sadly, there is a genuine risk that serious arguments demonstrating problems with the AGM notion are going to be overlooked because most of what we see is crankiness and charlatanry.

    So in the long run, all of this cherry picked data, climate vs weather problem, failure to take account of regression to the mean, quoting articles that don't support your point, etc, do serious damage. I have become so bored by all of it that I don't even bother reading it any more, knowing that it is almost certainly going to turn out to be sleight of hand once again.

    In other words, if you are serious about contesting the AGW, a bit of keep-your-mouth-shut until you have something worth taking seriously would probably be in your best interests.

    Some comments on Nigel Lawson from rather earlier in the thread. He has in fact taken part in considerable studies of global warming, and recently published a book on it, so is considered a serious commentator. Economists are generally more careful about the use of data than physical scientists, because we more regularly have difficult data with complicated statistical problems to deal with than physical scientists. So I think economists are often good people to employ to look at difficult data. But I'm biased because I am an economist. But I turned up something that did worry me. Not a scientifically valid point I know, but it is related to what I have been saying above. Reading through the wikipedia articles on his several well-known children, by chance I find a family connection to Christopher Monkton, the journalist who wrote that particularly plausible and clever collection of 100% sleight of hand trying to discredit AGW. But Lawson's particular position (like Bjorn Lomborg) seems to be that adaptation to global warming may be a rather cheaper solution than preventing it, denying the more apocalyptic predictions, so perhaps I shouldn't take the Monkton connection seriously.

    Oh yes, records being broken. The thing is there are so many possible meteorological records that one can think of, so many possible categorisations of the data, that it is hardly surprising that one can find records being broken all the time; the curiosity would be if you didn't. The same phenomenon that people use to make people think that astrological star-sign is a significant predictor of something or other, when in fact it is just the expected characteristic of random numbers. As it happens, the night before last recorded the lowest ever temperature I have known in the 18 years I have lived in the area. But nearby rather lower temperatures were recorded, and they were no record. So it isn't really very significant, just the first time in 18 years there has been a particularly fortuitous coincidence of conditions at precisely my location.

  23. #143
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,157
    The short answer is we don't know.
    Despite being publicly funded bodies, NASA?Giss and Hadley Met won't reveal their methods or details of data selectivity. Despite attempts to force them to reveal them under the freedom of information laws in the UK and US.
    In Australia we use thermometers in white boxes.

  24. #144
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Brak View Post
    In Australia we use thermometers in white boxes.
    And then report the readings to the NOAA, who use obscure 'adjustment techniques' inside black boxes.

  25. #145
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,074
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronald Brak View Post
    In Australia we use thermometers in white boxes.
    Well, I understand that some sort of temperature measurement device is used. What I mean is, how is the data collected and compiled? I don't claim to understand how it's done, which is why I was asking for an explanation. But to me, it seems like finding an average temperature for a planet is the type of thing that you'd get five different answers for if you got five different organizations to do it.

    The first time I was made aware of this question was on an anti-global warming website, so I don't know how much veracity it has. But to a laymen like me it seems like an honest question; how can you put stock in estimates of how much damage a degree or two change in the average temperature does when it is so difficult to say for sure what the the average temperature actually is?

  26. #146
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,110
    On how global temperature is measured, the lack of an urban heat effect, etc.

    http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/inde...s_Not_Reliable
    http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/inde..._Island_effect
    http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidere...ity-attack.php

    For those complaining about the lack of public access to the GISS code, you must not have looked hard enough:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/

  27. #147
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    7,157
    Well, I understand that some sort of temperature measurement device is used. What I mean is, how is the data collected and compiled? I don't claim to understand how it's done, which is why I was asking for an explanation. But to me, it seems like finding an average temperature for a planet is the type of thing that you'd get five different answers for if you got five different organizations to do it.

    The first time I was made aware of this question was on an anti-global warming website, so I don't know how much veracity it has. But to a laymen like me it seems like an honest question; how can you put stock in estimates of how much damage a degree or two change in the average temperature does when it is so difficult to say for sure what the the average temperature actually is?
    It's pretty accurate. Basically we have hundreds of weather stations across Australia with carefully calibrated thermometers and they all record maximum and minimum daily temperatures and other data. Average temperatures are just averages. There's nothing complex about it. And the Bureau of Meteorology produces annual reports like this one:

    http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/...20080103.shtml

    So basically we can be quite sure what the average temperature is, with quite small margains of error.

  28. #148
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,096
    Quote Originally Posted by parejkoj View Post
    On how global temperature is measured, the lack of an urban heat effect, etc.

    For those complaining about the lack of public access to the GISS code, you must not have looked hard enough:
    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/
    Steve McIntyre over at cimate audit (A seriously competent statistician) has been decoding and reconstructing the Giss info for quite a while. He should know better than anyone that the resources provided do not enable just anyone to reconstruct the Giss temperature series. He does however acknowledge that Giss has made an effort (however reluctantly) to make most the data and code available. There are still areas where the methods of 'adjustment' and the selectivity of stations is quite opaque.

  29. #149
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,916
    Quote Originally Posted by ToSeek View Post
    Why are you all of a sudden bringing in the Medieval Warm Period when that was not mentioned in the post I'm responding to?

    William: My point is that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was a long term warm period that was as warm as the 20th century warming. The MWP had a cause. There are cycles of warming and cooling in the proxy climate data in addition to abrupt planetary temperature changes. There needs to be a mechanism to warm the planet to create the MWP and to cool the planet to create the Little Ice age. That mechanism cannot be CO2 as there is no mechanism to cyclically increase and decrease CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

    There must be a scientific explanation for the MWP, the Little Ice Age, and the 20th century warming.
    Again, your conclusion is unjustified. 1998 is an outlier due to a strong El Nino. If you ignore 1998, you can see a steady warming trend both before and after. If you incorporate 1998 in some appropriate way, like doing five-year averaging, you see the same thing. There is no plateau in the data.


    Completely untrue. 2008 does come in 10th, but all the years warmer than it occurred since 1997, so very few of them were in the 20th century. Reference.

    William: 1998 was the warmest year in the 20th century. 1998 is not, however, warmer than the warmest year in the MWP. All years after 1998 were cooler than 1998. 2008 was the coldest year in that ten year period. To me that is a clear cooling trend.

    It appears the cooling trend is continuing and accelerating as there are now record (roughly 20 year record) cold temperatures being set in multiple locations in the Northern and Southern hemisphere.
    Wrong again. Arctic sea ice right now is about 2 million km^2 less than the 1979-2000 average. Reference.

    William: Your link is to the Arctic sea ice anomaly, not to the Antarctic sea ice which slightly less than 2 million square kilometres more than the long term average in 2008. That is the most amount of sea ice in the antarctic in 30 years.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph...anom.south.jpg

    This is a link that provides the total sea ice for the planet. Total sea ice has recovered to slightly above the long term average which would provide support the assertion that the planet is now cooling.

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosph....withtrend.jpg
    If 2008 is a cooling trend, then 2009 should be significantly colder than 2008.

  30. #150
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,916
    This is a link to the satellite data that shows the ocean surface temperature. Based on the ocean surface temperatures it appears the planet is cooling.

    http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SS...t.1.9.2009.gif

    The planet’s 1/e response time to a step forcing change is roughly 3 to 4 years. Roughly 85% of the planet's heat energy is stored in the oceans so a measurement of ocean surface temperature is an indication of how the planet’s heat energy balance is changing.

    For record cold winter temperatures to occur at high latitude locations, there must be an increase in heat loss to space. The very cold high latitude air then moves to lower latitudes were it mixes with warm moist air to create blizzards and ice storms.

Similar Threads

  1. A general gardening thread
    By TheOncomingStorm in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 334
    Last Post: 2014-Jun-22, 03:56 PM
  2. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 2010-Aug-07, 02:40 AM
  3. MOND - a general discussion
    By Nereid in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 242
    Last Post: 2006-Oct-18, 01:06 PM
  4. A General Discussion of the Alternative Approach
    By Tim Thompson in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 2005-Jul-27, 01:04 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: