• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

parky76 said:
what will it cause? who the hell knows. but it cant be good. Mother Earth does not do well with sudden change.
Click to expand...

Human societies cope even less well, however "free" or "unfree" their markets might be. Ideologies can have a long tail of decline but they're too simplistic to matter for long.

We won't live long enough to see what ideologies emerge from this episode in human history but I reckon they'll centre aound sustainability instead of progress. Which is to say, different flavours of conservatism. Ironic, if I'm right.
 
parky76 said:
GW Deniers also tend to be NWO conspiracy theorists.

dude...I wish global warming was NOT taking place. but it appears that it is indeed happening.
Click to expand...

I've often heard the claim that governments are promoting AGW for their own "empowerment", but the last thing they need is another complication. They have enough to cope with as it is, what with economic change, inexorable scientific and technological advance, and popular resistance to both (expressed currently through religion but not long ago through ideology). The last thing any of them need is for something as basic as the weather to freak out on them on top of everything else.

Which explains why the response has been so slow, and isn't going to speed up much at Copenhagen. First response : have a conference. Next step : set up a committee (the IPCC in this case). Next response : another conference. With luck it'll all have gone away by then. If not, more conferences. Bali, two years ago, was the crunch-time, when they got together and resolved on a conference this year in Copenhagen to really get down to business, oh yes. Geneva next I reckon, the tar-pit of irreconcilable diplomacy.

Shame about the skiing, but way above sea-level.
 
Anatartic Ice Core Data 1 largely depicts climatic response to Milankovitch Cycles. The funny little temperature trend to which you refer actually began approximately 10,000 years ago. Nearly hugging the right hand Y-Axis, however, is a blue vertical line that represents CO2 emmisions since the industrial revolution. But this represents much more. This is our departure from the natural climatic cycle that generally drive's the Earth's climate.

Anatartic Ice Core Data 2 zooms in on our divergence. At this range, the long term cyclic correlations between CO2 and temperature aren't so apparent, however, so the divergence isn't necessarily quite so apparent, even though the departure itself is slightly more visible.

Anatartic Ice Core Data 3 zooms in on our divergence even more. Ironically, now that we can easily see the recent trends, the departure is not evident, because we've lost our paleoclimatic reference. The cyclic temperature varriance that starts during 1958 actually represents a change in source data; prior to 1958, temperature data are being calculated from ice core samples, while after 1958, temperature data are collected from direct measurement.

Anatartic Ice Core Data 5 zooms in on our divergence entirely. At this scale, it's quite evident that CO2 increases are leading temperature increases. Return to Ice Core Data 1, and notice the difference.

So, both Madoc and Parky are correct; these graphs speak volumnes about natural climatic cycles and our current anthro-influenced climate. These aren't the best graphs to depict the current warming, but they are fantastic graphs to depict our departure from the known, beaten path.
 
parky76 said:
GW Deniers also tend to be NWO conspiracy theorists.
Click to expand...


I disagree. They tend to be Libertarians, or Republicans who fall in with Libertarians on economic philosophy.

Since climate change presents an externality that cannot be addressed within what they will accept as a free market framework it’s existence is incompatible with one of the basic tenets of their belief system. This is why they sound and argue so much like young earth creationists who have similar issues with evolution making one of their core beliefs unworkable.

In both cases their response is to simply deny the existence of the offending science.

While the deniers tend to worship a false version of the free market, while the NWO crowd worships the notion that “government is evil”. They will tend to form alliances because they offer cross support to the others views but each will be most active in their own narrow area.
 
OMGturt1es said:
Direct measurements are superior.

Core samples still kick ass, though. Awesome stuff.
Click to expand...

Furthermore, the overlapping period between instrument and ice core are important for calibrating and validating the ice cores. This is what gives them a useful scale, but it also means they are not independent of what is measured by the instruments.
 
lomiller said:
I disagree. They tend to be Libertarians, or Republicans who fall in with Libertarians on economic philosophy.

Since climate change presents an externality that cannot be addressed within what they will accept as a free market framework it’s existence is incompatible with one of the basic tenets of their belief system. This is why they sound and argue so much like young earth creationists who have similar issues with evolution making one of their core beliefs unworkable.

In both cases their response is to simply deny the existence of the offending science.

While the deniers tend to worship a false version of the free market, while the NWO crowd worships the notion that “government is evil”. They will tend to form alliances because they offer cross support to the others views but each will be most active in their own narrow area.
Click to expand...

I disagree here too. Unless you are talking about the small % of extremists that actually deny the existence of any GW. In that case there is a huge overgeneralisation made.
Most of those that you call deniers are not deniers at all. They believe there is Global Warming, what they don't believe is the amount that man has contributed to this warming.
 
OMGturt1es said:
Direct measurements are superior.

Core samples still kick ass, though. Awesome stuff.
Click to expand...

if we are looking at temperature data over 200,000 years, don't you think we should be consistent?

i am sometimes concerned about how the heat-island effect may be artificially raising temperature readings, even in small towns and villages. just a little bit of concrete or asphalt can make a 1 or 2 degree difference in temperature readings, and that is relevant.

and honestly, I wouldn't trust any temperature readings from thermometers within 50 miles of a major city.
 
parky76 said:
if we are looking at temperature data over 200,000 years, don't you think we should be consistent?

i am sometimes concerned about how the heat-island effect may be artificially raising temperature readings, even in small towns and villages. just a little bit of concrete or asphalt can make a 1 or 2 degree difference in temperature readings, and that is relevant.

and honestly, I wouldn't trust any temperature readings from thermometers within 50 miles of a major city.
Click to expand...

The professionals share your concerns, and have always taken steps to secure the integrity of this type of data and to insure that it is appropriately dealt with in any calculations that involve or require their usage.
 
TShaitanaku said:
The professionals share your concerns, and have always taken steps to secure the integrity of this type of data and to insure that it is appropriately dealt with in any calculations that involve or require their usage.
Click to expand...

how exactly have they dealt with such problems?
 
parky76 said:
how exactly have they dealt with such problems?
Click to expand...
Hi parky76,
Answering "how exactly" would require a course in the analysis of weather station data in climate science. That might take a while :)
From my basic knowledge of the situation:
Meteorologists and climate scientists know about the heat-island effect. They study this effect and the evidence is that it has little effect on temperature measurements or global warming.
Urban heat island
Relation to global warming

A depiction of the varying degree of the urban heat island effect as a function of land use. Gill et al. 2007 found that an additional 10% green space can mitigate UHI by up to 4 °C (7 °F).Not all cities show a warming relative to their rural surroundings. After trends were adjusted in urban weather stations around the world to match rural stations in their regions, in an effort to homogenise the temperature record, in 42 percent of cases, cities were getting cooler relative to their surroundings rather than warmer. One reason is that urban areas are heterogeneous, and weather stations are often sited in "cool islands" – parks, for example – within urban areas.[32]
The effects of the urban heat island may be overstated. One study stated, "Contrary to generally accepted wisdom, no statistically significant impact of urbanization could be found in annual temperatures." This was done by using satellite-based night-light detection of urban areas, and more thorough homogenisation of the time series (with corrections, for example, for the tendency of surrounding rural stations to be slightly higher in elevation, and thus cooler, than urban areas). If its conclusion is accepted, then it is necessary to "unravel the mystery of how a global temperature time series created partly from urban in situ stations could show no contamination from urban warming." The main conclusion is that microscale and local-scale impacts dominate the mesoscale impact of the urban heat island. Many sections of towns may be warmer than rural sites, but surface weather observations are likely to be made in park "cool islands."[33]
Studies in 2004 and 2006 attempted to test the urban heat island theory, by comparing temperature readings taken on calm nights with those taken on windy nights.[34][35] If the urban heat island theory is correct then instruments should have recorded a bigger temperature rise for calm nights than for windy ones, because wind blows excess heat away from cities and away from the measuring instruments. There was no difference between the calm and windy nights, and one study said that we show that, globally, temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development.[34][36]
Click to expand...
 
parky76 said:
if we are looking at temperature data over 200,000 years, don't you think we should be consistent?
Click to expand...

The direct measurements were added simply because they are superior. Ice core data agree, but don't offer the precision of directly measured temperatures.

i am sometimes concerned about how the heat-island effect may be artificially raising temperature readings, even in small towns and villages. just a little bit of concrete or asphalt can make a 1 or 2 degree difference in temperature readings, and that is relevant.

and honestly, I wouldn't trust any temperature readings from thermometers within 50 miles of a major city.
Click to expand...

But that wouldn't impact the overall trend, unless all cities were growing at such a rate that the temperatures continued to increase. It wasn't that long ago that Anthony Watts announced some preliminary results of his attempt to "fix" the "heat island" problem. He exluded all stations that he suspected could be influenced. His temperatures were slightly lower, but there was no change in trend.
 
Parky
i
am sometimes concerned about how the heat-island effect may be artificially raising temperature readings, even in small towns and villages. just a little bit of concrete or asphalt can make a 1 or 2 degree difference in temperature readings, and that is relevant.

and honestly, I wouldn't trust any temperature readings from thermometers within 50 miles of a major city.
Click to expand...
OMG


But that wouldn't impact the overall trend, unless all cities were growing at such a rate that the temperatures continued to increase. It wasn't that long ago that Anthony Watts announced some preliminary results of his attempt to "fix" the "heat island" problem. He exluded all stations that he suspected could be influenced. His temperatures were slightly lower, but there was no change in trend.
Click to expand...

Heat islands don't change the migration patterns in the Arctic, the spring blooming of plants across a wide range, the melting of mid latitude glaciers and for damn sure there are no heat islands here

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

Beyond that steaming herd of walrus over yonder.....

As far as I'm concerned measurement only confirms observed phenomena and the breadth of observed change is global fish, birds, mammals and plants all tell the same tale....it's getting warmer mostly everywhere with the bulk in the north.
 
A.A.Alfie said:
Most of those that you call deniers are not deniers at all. They believe there is Global Warming, what they don't believe is the amount that man has contributed to this warming.
Click to expand...

So where are all these hypothetical people who accept that global warming is happening, but merely disagree on the cause? I've certainly seem people claim to be such, but those same people then jump on things like the recent email scandal as if it supports their point. Since the only data that may be called into question by that is addressing the question of whether warming is happening at all, one has to wonder whether their claims of accepting warming are actually true, or if they're just trying to sound less insane in order to get people to take them seriously.

If the people you claim to be the majority are actually anything more than a tiny minority, why do we not see them arguing with the outright deniers? Why do they not add their support in the debates involving ice melting, surface temperatures and the like? If they accept warming, then they presumably accept all this data that supports warming, and only disagree with the bits suggesting humans are a significant cause. However, we can clearly see that this does not happen. The people who argue about the cause almost invariably also argue about the reality of warming as well. People who accept warming but dispute the cause no doubt exist, but they are a tiny minority.

And isn't this interesting, look what we have here:
A.A.Alfie said:
How long does it take to suspend a denier"?
How long does it take to suspend a 'warmer'?
Click to expand...
It almost seems as though you refer to those who disagree with you as "warmers". But wait, weren't you just claiming that most people accept global warming? So they're all "warmers" as well? Does that include you then? Could it be that you are in fact one of those who pretends to accept global warming sometimes, but obviously believes it isn't happening in most of your arguments? Or were you just valiantly coming to the aid of those poor warmers who were incorrectly being labelled deniers by their own side?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom