Anthopogenic Global Warming Myth or Real ?

[CapelDodger]

And I ask again:-

Why aren't the weather station nazis besieging the various met offices and TV weather presenters about the rubbish they're foisting on us?

Why aren't Brits calling the Admiralty to account for such laxity at the Met Office over a century and a half. All that expenditure on a matter of strategic importance, and it turns out to be no better than sticking a wet finger in the air?

We'd be outraged were it true. And there's no outrage. There's major irritation at the actual weather but we're not about to shoot the messengers.

 

[TrueSceptic]

Why aren't Brits calling the Admiralty to account for such laxity at the Met Office over a century and a half. All that expenditure on a matter of strategic importance, and it turns out to be no better than sticking a wet finger in the air?

We'd be outraged were it true. And there's no outrage. There's major irritation at the actual weather but we're not about to shoot the messengers.

Of course, we have to wonder if John Coleman, Joe D'Aleo, and Anthony Watts were aware of this when they worked as weathermen!

Wait! Coleman and Watts still work as weathermen! Obviously their forecasts must be worthless, being based on rubbish data.

 

[CapelDodger]

Of course, we have to wonder if John Coleman, Joe D'Aleo, and Anthony Watts were aware of this when they worked as weathermen!

Wait! Coleman and Watts still work as weathermen! Obviously their forecasts must be worthless, being based on rubbish data.

It's a problem for them, no doubt about it. Meteorology has a long and distinguished heritage; when they suddenly disown it they're left with no status at all.

 

[lomiller]

I don't think he is suggesting that. He is suggesting that high-reading stations are distorting the data (and that this bias is ignored).

Stations are first compared to themselves to calculate an anomaly. If a station reads high, it also being compared to readings that are similarly high. The only way you can get an artificially high reading from a station is if that station says day x is warmer then day y, when day y was really warmer.

This occurs before you have any real error treatment.

 

[Spud1k]

It's a problem for them, no doubt about it. Meteorology has a long and distinguished heritage; when they suddenly disown it they're left with no status at all.

It's always concerned me how many climate change deniers out there count themselves as 'ex-meteorologists'. Then upon reading your comment, it clicked; the operative bit is the 'ex' and it's probably there for a reason.

Anyway, sorry, getting off topic.

 

[ddt]

Earlier this week, the Dutch "Delta Committee" presented its advice to the government for its water policy for the rest of the century.

From the English summary of the advice:

It is the Delta Committee’s conclusion that a regional sea level rise of 0.65 to 1.3 meters should be expected for 2100, and from 2 to 4 meters in 2200. This includes the effect of land subsidence. These values represent plausible upper limits based on the latest scientific insights. It is recommended to take these into account so that the current decisions we make and the measures we take will be sustainable for a long time, set against the background of what we can expect.

A bit of a derail, but I thought you AGW debaters might be interested.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's always concerned me how many climate change deniers out there count themselves as 'ex-meteorologists'. Then upon reading your comment, it clicked; the operative bit is the 'ex' and it's probably there for a reason.

And its the obvious one - the age-profile of the "sceptic scientist" pool. They ain't no spring chickens. Their careers are mostly behind them, and they're not recruiting well from those whose career is ahead of them.

Anyway, sorry, getting off topic.

There's a topic ?

 

[BenBurch]

Earlier this week, the Dutch "Delta Committee" presented its advice to the government for its water policy for the rest of the century.

From the English summary of the advice:


A bit of a derail, but I thought you AGW debaters might be interested.

All I can say is I hope they BUILD for 4 meters. Because I believe things will go sour pretty quickly when they do.

 

[Piggy]

For those who continue to cite their blogs and cranks and op-ed pieces, and who refuse to actually read the current science:

Even If Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hold Steady, Warmer World Faces Loss Of Biodiversity, Glaciers

Some highlights (all bolding mine):

(Sep. 17, 2008) — The earth will warm about 2.4° C (4.3° F) above pre-industrial levels even under extremely conservative greenhouse-gas emission scenarios and under the assumption that efforts to clean up particulate pollution continue to be successful, according to a new analysis by a pair of researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at UC San Diego.

.

That amount of warming falls within what the world's leading climate change authority recently set as the threshold range of temperature increase that would lead to widespread loss of biodiversity, deglaciation and other adverse consequences in nature. The researchers, writing in the online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, argue that coping with these circumstances will require "transformational research for guiding the path of future energy consumption."

.

"This paper demonstrates the major challenges society will have to face in dealing with a problem that now seems unavoidable," said the paper's lead author, Scripps Atmospheric and Climate Sciences Professor V. Ramanathan.

.

In their analysis, Ramanathan and co-author Yan Feng, a Scripps postdoctoral research fellow, assumed a highly optimistic scenario that greenhouse gas concentrations would remain constant at 2005 levels for the next century. For the concentrations to remain at 2005 levels, the emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide must decrease drastically within the next decade. Economic expansion, however, is expected to see emissions increase.

.

By contrast, greenhouse gases can remain in the atmosphere for decades or, in the case of carbon dioxide, more than a century.

.

Ramanathan and Feng estimated that the increase in greenhouse gases from pre-industrial era levels has already committed Earth to a warming range of 1.4° C to 4.3° C (2.5° F to 7.7° F). About 90 percent of that warming will most likely be experienced in the 21st Century. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change identified a temperature increase range between 1° C and 3°C (1.8° F and 5.4°F) as the threshold at which society commits the planet to biodiversity loss and deglaciation in areas such as Greenland and the Himalayas.

.

The authors point out that the real problem is not the reduction of air pollution, but it is the lack of comparable reductions in emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases to offset the reductions in the surface cooling effect of fog.

.

"Given that a potentially large warming is already in our rear-view mirror, scientists and engineers must mount a massive effort and develop solutions for adapting to climate change and for mitigating it," Ramanathan said. "Drastic reduction of short-lived warming agents is one way to buy the planet time for developing cost-effective ways for reducing CO2 concentrations."

That's real, current, scientifically accepted research by people who know what they're doing, and who are not assuming worst-case scenarios.

And none of your crank citations means a hill of beans.

 

[Bluefire]

Piggy, I saw much assertions and opinions there, but very little backing cited, and very little validation in that pop-ified SD article.

Could you provide us with the actual paper such that a meaningful analysis could be done? I don't see an actual cite in that SD article either ... only a "Adapted from materials provided by University of California - San Diego."

Until this is provided that news-article is just about worthless sciencewise.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

I can bet that the "analisys" is that they pick a model, feeded it with some assumptions and then claim that earth will almost collapse due to the deglaciation, loss of biodiversity and so on. At least , they are not claiming 20 meters of sea level rise.

Any comment about the real predictive value of the model is of course excluded from the paper. Also, you have to wait about 50 years to see if the conclusions are correct. When they fail, thei'll claim that "CFCs are hiding warming" or "The ocean is absorbing CO2" or the popular warming mantra.....

If they are now still claiming that Hansen's 88 predictions are correct NOW, what can you expect from them to say next?

 

[Spud1k]

Piggy, I saw much assertions and opinions there, but very little backing cited, and very little validation in that pop-ified SD article.

Could you provide us with the actual paper such that a meaningful analysis could be done? I don't see an actual cite in that SD article either ... only a "Adapted from materials provided by University of California - San Diego."

Until this is provided that news-article is just about worthless sciencewise.

It said that the article is in PNAS. My guess is that it'll be out in next week's edition.

 

[Piggy]

Piggy, I saw much assertions and opinions there, but very little backing cited, and very little validation in that pop-ified SD article.

Could you provide us with the actual paper such that a meaningful analysis could be done? I don't see an actual cite in that SD article either ... only a "Adapted from materials provided by University of California - San Diego."

Until this is provided that news-article is just about worthless sciencewise.

Don't be ridiculous. They've given you the researchers' names and institutions and the name of the online journal where their research is published, which is in the sections I've cited.

I was able to go to the PNAS site, plug the authors' names (Ramanathan and Feng) into the search bar and immediately got their article. The abstract is here, and you can run the same search and get the full PDF if you like.

But if you're not capable of reading that "pop-ified" article and finding the source with information that's provided in it, how can you hope to begin to read any of the background by following their citations?

These are researchers from Scripps publishing in PNAS and you have the gall to call it assertions and opinion. Like all the other ignorazzi, you reserve that option by remaining wilfully ignorant of science.

 

[Piggy]

I can bet that the "analisys" is that they pick a model, feeded it with some assumptions and then claim that earth will almost collapse due to the deglaciation, loss of biodiversity and so on. At least , they are not claiming 20 meters of sea level rise.

Any comment about the real predictive value of the model is of course excluded from the paper. Also, you have to wait about 50 years to see if the conclusions are correct. When they fail, thei'll claim that "CFCs are hiding warming" or "The ocean is absorbing CO2" or the popular warming mantra.....

If they are now still claiming that Hansen's 88 predictions are correct NOW, what can you expect from them to say next?

All of which you can say because you, like the other ignorazzi, refuse to read any of the science upon which this is based. You have no understanding of this article's place in the science as a whole, so you hurl your little spitballs at it.

Hill of beans.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

LOL It looks like a fundamentalist muslim saw a picture of allah!

Well, anyway, what your "analysts" did was exactly what I said.

 

[Bluefire]

(Lots of invective and a little useful info)

Thanks for the pointer, I guess.

Now we can do a first analysis of the usefulness of this paper...

From the abstract: "The committed warming is inferred from the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of the greenhouse forcing and climate sensitivity."

So this paper don't actually purports to prove the 2.4 degree change, but takes it "for granted" (from IPCC). (It also takes a lot of other things from IPCC). I guess the conclusion of the paper is summarized best as "if IPCC is right we have tough times ahead" ?

I guess for anyone that agrees that IPCC:s report is an accurate description in these areas this might be interesting, but for anyone finding IPCC lacking in the validation department this paper offers nothing.

(This is from a reading of the abstract, anyone who has read the whole article may want to comment on if there is more to it than that, and whether a "read in full" is recommended).

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

There is a clue :

 

[mhaze]

Piggy, I saw much assertions and opinions there, but very little backing cited, and very little validation in that pop-ified SD article.

Could you provide us with the actual paper such that a meaningful analysis could be done? I don't see an actual cite in that SD article either ... only a "Adapted from materials provided by University of California - San Diego."

Until this is provided that news-article is just about worthless sciencewise.

Exactly my complaint about "Science Daily". Plus you have to dig, hunt and guess at the source citation - not always, but much of the time.

I'm not at all convinced it renders science into pop science accurately. Reminds one of "New Scientist".

 

[TrueSceptic]

Piggy, I saw much assertions and opinions there, but very little backing cited, and very little validation in that pop-ified SD article.

Could you provide us with the actual paper such that a meaningful analysis could be done? I don't see an actual cite in that SD article either ... only a "Adapted from materials provided by University of California - San Diego."

Until this is provided that news-article is just about worthless sciencewise.

So a "sceptic" wants to perform a "meaningful analysis".

Are these people really so deluded?

 

[Piggy]

LOL It looks like a fundamentalist muslim saw a picture of allah!

Well, anyway, what your "analysts" did was exactly what I said.

If by "pick a model" you mean "choose a model that has been verified in the field over decades of constant observation" and if by "feed it assumptions" you mean "use the most conservative assumptions you can", then I guess technically you're correct.

If you think they're claiming the earth will "almost collapse" then you haven't read the article. They are indeed predicting some dire consequences for humans and other species, but this is based on actual research.

Your denial of the possibility of dire consequences is based merely on your own ignorance.

I'll take the research, thank you.