Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[a_unique_person]

For 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record, at 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F). 1998 is the third warmest year-to-date on record, at 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average.

The 2010 corn growing season was excellent!Corn yields were record breaking - with 95% of the yields submitted to Agricorp, the provincial average stands at 172 bu/ac (10.79 tonnes/ha); undoubtedly, when all acres are reported this will result in a provincial average yield that is significantly higher than any previous year. Prior to 2010 the highest OMAFRA provincial average corn yield was 156 bu/ac (9.78 tonnes/ha) in 2008

The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for April 2010 was the warmest on record at 14.5°C (58.1°F), which is 0.76°C (1.37°F) above the 20th century average of 13.7°C (56.7°F).


April weather was abnormally warm and relatively dry resulting in perhaps the best soil conditions and earliest corn planting ever experienced in the province.


I noticed this correlation when I was looking though the anomalies page. Some people just don't understand what a benefit warming may actually be to areas that grow the world's food. They've convinced themselves that Global Warming means drought and desertification. That's the furthest thing from the truth. More heat units means more crops, that's a proven fact.

The rate of development of crops from planting to maturity is dependent mainly upon temperature. Cool temperatures slow down the progress to maturity and warm temperatures hasten maturity. Other environmental factors - such as photoperiod (daily period from sunrise to sunset), soil fertility and available water in the soil - can also influence the rate of crop development.​

What isn't known is what effect warming will have on the water supply.

People have asked "What's alarmist? Define it". An alarmist will look at the above evidence, dismiss what's known and instead focus on the unknown to come to a conclusion that is in contradiction with the actual facts.

It's quite possible the negative model predictions may never match with the positive empirical results.

Look at Las Vegas, they are proud of cutting water usage per person from 315 gallons to 235 gallons a day . Melbourne, Victoria has been targetting 155 liters per day, that's 40 gallons per person, during the worst drought ever.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/09/02/las.vegas.water/index.html?hpt=hp_bn1
http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/environment-and-waste/water/water-restrictions.html

A very large desal plant has just been built, but at a phenomenal cost, 3.5 billion dollars. Over it's lifetime, it's going to cost ten times that much to run. There are questions about it's ability to meet international standards on the boron count in the water, because boron can't be kept out by the membranes.

 

[steenkh]

So are we at a point in the discussion where we are trying to establish whether global warming is true or false? Or are we at the point where we are debating that it’s natural or manmade? Just checking.

I thought we were at the point where we are trying to figure out why a vocal minority insists on denying both.

 

[Pixel42]

Sorry if I misunderstood; I read it as you lumping him with those "less intelligent and knowledgable" who would remain bamboozled, until he caught on "eventually".

If he was in the former grouping of those who were "more intelligent and knowledgable", I figured that is where he would be mentioned.

As I'd just said that I did not consider publishing the paper to be a mistake worthy of resignation I thought it was obvious it was the editor I was thinking of when pointed out that "Plenty of intelligent, knowledgable people can be temporarily bamboozled by this kind of fundamentally flawed paper", and that when I said "Many less intelligent and knowledgable people will remain so" I meant less intelligent and knowledgable than the editor.

Apologies if that was not as clear as I'd assumed it was.

 

[Pixel42]

I think that the far more interesting question is whether or not folks here think that internet discussion fora are viable venues for scientific rebuttal of a peer reviewed paper.

I have to admit, the comment you quote also gave me pause. I think a lot depends on who is doing the rebutting; in this case the fact that it's the authors' scientific peers, the ones who would normally have done the peer-reviewing of the paper had it been published in one of the usual journals, means that the rebuttals should be taken seriously. Certainly more seriously than the many attacks against peer-reviewed research published on the internet by laymen.

I think this extract from the BBC article explains why this unconventional rebuttal was necessary:

Publishing in "off-topic" journals is generally frowned on in scientific circles, partly because editors may lack the specialist knowledge and contacts needed to run a thorough peer review process.

In essence, Dr Wagner, a professor of remote sensing at Vienna University of Technology, is blaming himself for this failing.

But he also blames the researchers themselves for not referencing all the relevant research in their manuscript.

"The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted..., a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers.

"In other words, the problem I see with the paper... is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents.

So a paper is published in a peer-review journal, and comments in internet forums result in the journal editor stepping down? Is this really how science is done these days?

I've already said I consider the editor stepping down an over-reaction, but when the conventional channels for the effective peer review of scientific papers are deliberately avoided it may regrettably become necessary for unconventional ones to be used. Those unconventional channels are already being used to attack and misrepresent scientific research, it's inevitable that they will also be used to defend it.

 

[bit_pattern]

Retract the paper, or publish rebuttals. :

That will happen this week in Geophysical Review Letters, by all accounts

 

[Wangler]

So are we at a point in the discussion where we are trying to establish whether global warming is true or false? Or are we at the point where we are debating that it’s natural or manmade? Just checking.

Not even close.

We are still trying to figure out the definition of "20th Century".

 

[Mikemcc]

I forgot to mention this in my previous answer, sorry:

I think that the far more interesting question is whether or not folks here think that internet discussion fora are viable venues for scientific rebuttal of a peer reviewed paper.

From the BBC article about the editor stepping down:



So a paper is published in a peer-review journal, and comments in internet forums result in the journal editor stepping down? Is this really how science is done these days?

When a number of the forums and blogs are either run by very well known and respected climate scientists (RealClimate, The Daily Climate, etc), or have a number of contributuions from them (SkepticalScience), or statisticians (Tamino's Open Mind), then it's fair to say that. In just the same way many denier sites also have their say. Spencer and Christy have both contributed greatly to the body of knowledge on climate science, unfortunately they seem to be disappearing down the rabbit-hole of late. No doubt a number of scientists allso wrote to the Journal to dispute the claims in the paper. Just because there has been plenty of debate on the forums and blogs, it does not imply that it is the sole line of communication.

At least discussion on forums is better than trial by media, especially from the idiots like Christopher Booker and James Delingpole.

 

[BenBurch]

So are we at a point in the discussion where we are trying to establish whether global warming is true or false? Or are we at the point where we are debating that it’s natural or manmade? Just checking.

Long past the first and almost totally past the second. It's an argument over degree of anthropogenic warming, moving into arguments over whether famine, drought, and pestilence are good or bad.

 

[BenBurch]

Not even close.

We are still trying to figure out the definition of "20th Century".

That too, and it's about the least interesting discussion we could be having.

 

[Wangler]

I've already said I consider the editor stepping down an over-reaction, but when the conventional channels for the effective peer review of scientific papers are deliberately avoided it may regrettably become necessary for unconventional ones to be used. Those unconventional channels are already being used to attack and misrepresent scientific research, it's inevitable that they will also be used to defend it.

Don't you think that based upon what happened at Remote Sensing, that in the future editors will be very careful if they receive submissions that seem, shall we say, strangely placed? Why the need to circumvent the established review and rebuttal process? That seems to be a slippery slope.

I agree that the BBC article didn't clearly state which different avenues of response to the paper were received by the editor, but that quote from the BBC story that I posted is taken directly from the editor's letter which was published in Remote Sensing.

 

[Wangler]

At least discussion on forums is better than trial by media.....

Perhaps, but neither belongs in the scientific review and rebuttal process, period.

I am quite surpised at how this process is discarded out of hand, but that is just me.

 

[Mikemcc]

That will happen this week in Geophysical Review Letters, by all accounts

Already out:

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2011.pdf

 

[CapelDodger]

Personally, I have little use for common (non)sense. It occassionally approximates reality but is generally little more than rumor, folklore and rhetoric that has been substituted in the stead of verifiable fact and empiric evidences ...

I think common-sense often works when the subject is relevant to the individual and they're not coming at it with preconceptions. The term is used rhetorically to audiences which do have preconceptions and biases to be confirmed.

...but I thought you were supposed to be the cynic here, not me?!

I try .

Exaggerates a bit, but not overly much. I guess a lot depends upon your definition of "hits the panic button."

I think JFrankA is rather "excluding the middle" in his post. That said, I think a lot of knowledgable people are choking back a rising sense of panic. Like fusion power, any meaningful action stays just as far in the future as it ever was.

I don't see "driving a hybrid" as doing much of anything to the near-term impacts of climate change, those are pretty much already in the pipeline. The actions we currently take have much more impact in the distant future than anything we will strongly notice in our lifetimes, not that this should be considered without effect, but anyone who expects their actions to change things quickly simply doesn't understand the situation.

This is a big part of the problem. Politicians may understand on an intellectual level that AGW is a game-changer, but on a gut-level they have shorter-term (and more habitual) matters to react to - national security and the economy. And re-election, of course, or keeping their junta happy. Economic ministries trump environmental ones every time, unless a government depends on some Greens for a parliamentary majority.

This is why I expect Peak Oil to have far more impact than any international programme to mitigate AGW. That and the drawn-out financial crisis which is in its early days yet.

(Personally, I try not to be part of the problem. I don't want some pimply youth pointing an accusing finger at me in twenty years time. They can accuse my generation of as much as they like, but not me.)

 

[Trakar]

I forgot to mention this in my previous answer, sorry:

I think that the far more interesting question is whether or not folks here think that internet discussion fora are viable venues for scientific rebuttal of a peer reviewed paper.

Such fora are certainly not the appropriate place for peer review, however, popular review and technical review are also a step in the broader review, analysis and acceptance/rejection of all science,...that said, nothing that I've read says anything akin to "this paper was rejected because a bunch of folks on the internet didn't like it."

From the BBC article about the editor stepping down:

The interesting part, is the bits and pieces of the article left out of your selective quotes, and the focal point of my question about your biased presentation of the issue. Statements like:

...It was seized on by "sceptic" bloggers, but attacked by mainstream scientists.
Wolfgang Wagner, editor of Remote Sensing journal, says he agrees with their criticisms and is stepping down.
...The paper, published in July, was swiftly attacked by scientists in the mainstream of climate research.
They also commented on the fact that the paper was not published in a journal that routinely deals with climate change. Remote Sensing's core topic is methods for monitoring aspects of the Earth from space.
..."The problem is that comparable studies published by other authors have already been refuted..., a fact which was ignored by Spencer and Braswell in their paper and, unfortunately, not picked up by the reviewers.
"In other words, the problem I see with the paper... is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents.
...Mr Ward described the tactic of publishing in off-topic journals as a "classic tactic" of scientists dismissive of man-made climate change.
"Those who recognise that their ideas are weak but seek to get them into the literature by finding weaknesses in the peer review system are taking a thoroughly disreputable approach," he said...

It is rather hard to maintain the prespective you are trying to project when one does a full reading of the material in context, rather than merely reading the little cherry-picked nuggets obviously intended to distort and dissemble with regards to the article's actual content and information.

So a paper is published in a peer-review journal, and comments in internet forums result in the journal editor stepping down? Is this really how science is done these days?

If science papers are read the way some read BBC articles, it is little wonder that there is so much misunderstanding of climate science in some quarters.

 

[Trakar]

So are we at a point in the discussion where we are trying to establish whether global warming is true or false? Or are we at the point where we are debating that it’s natural or manmade? Just checking.

WE are at the point where we are trying to figure out how to minimize and survive the impacts of the damages we have already inflicted upon the planet's climate, while finding a course that will allow us to move forward without adding to these damages. Most of the rest of this is an attempt to delay and distract from these discussions and considerations.

 

[Trakar]

I thought we were at the point where we are trying to figure out why a vocal minority insists on denying both.

THe vocal minority, have established their own irrelevence.

 

[Trakar]

Not even close.

We are still trying to figure out the definition of "20th Century".

As far as I can tell there is no "we" confused about the term, only one contrarian without a substantive support or argument for his disconnected beliefs and distortions.

 

[L.Y.S.]

Not even close.

We are still trying to figure out the definition of "20th Century".

Unfortunate. I see a bagillion pages and we haven't discussed much yet .

 

[Furcifer]

Please provide just oneof these hundreds of citations that explicitly mentions a 20th century average using data from outside of the common definition of the 20th century. You've completely failed to do so thus far. The only papers that you have cited have explicitly made distinctions between 19th, 20th and 21st centuary data. There has also been an e-mail response posted up to show you that NOAA work to the common definition and not your fanciful interpretation.

You are in a club of one.

Nonsense. there have been numerous provided, and of course the email from NOAA simply stating there's there no known "universal convention".
The fact that the term "20th Century" may be less than the year 1901-2000 or more than those years is a relatively simple concept.
I don't see the point of denying this simple fact?

 

[Furcifer]

Hi Furcifer, You keep on asserting this but the only citations that I can find have nothing to do with the "20th century average":

• trends are not averages
• Monthly averages are not 20th century averages
• Annual and seasonal averages are not 20th century averages

• 
  They're all referenced as being taken from the 20th Century, when in fact the years may be less than or more than the technical definition of the 20th Century. What's to understand?
  
  

  P.S.This is still outstanding but I understand that it is a public holiday (at least in the USA) so there is no rush:
  Furcifer: Provide your evidence for the cherry picking in Skeptical Science
  (30 August 2011).
  How about a list of 10 articles and the papers that they ignored in order to cherry pick their cited papers?

  
  There's more than 10 articles cited in this thread that haven't graced the propaganda, fear mongering pseudoscience sites like crapclimate.com and socalledskepticalscience.com. They filter the science to their willingly ignorant readers. That's why I don't use them, and that's why people seriously interested in climate science don't either.
  Most of the journals are available, trying reading some. It's very eye opening.