Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[Laidbackracer]

I don't believe I know theozonehole, I'll check it out a bit.

Google is your friend, they all show the same trend.

 

[Trakar]

That graph is bogus...look at the originals. The UAH graph I displayed earlier is clearly showing a different trend.

Indeed, my source is a published paper published by researchers that specifically undertook the task you suggested. The paper is well cited and respected, there work passed both publication peer review and has been well received by their peers post-publication.

What is the source of your graphs?

How do you account for the discrepancies you see?

 

[Laidbackracer]

http://www.sott.net/image/image/13455/full/ALL_SINCE_2002.jpg

Breach of rule 5 removed. Do not hotlink images from other sites without permission.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Laidbackracer]

Indeed, my source is a published paper published by researchers that specifically undertook the task you suggested. The paper is well cited and respected, there work passed both publication peer review and has been well received by their peers post-publication.

What is the source of your graphs?

How do you account for the discrepancies you see?

I think you need to do your research a little better. Go to the source of the temperature record.

 

[macdoc]

http://www.drroyspencer.com

is the source of the graph LR is peddling....

Yknow the same guy that is a creationist

Yes, Roy Spencer IS a creationist. | The Way Things Break
thingsbreak.wordpress.com/2008/07/28/yes-roy-spencer-is-a-creationist/‎
Jul 28, 2008 - UPDATE: For those who are unaware, Roy Spencer is a vocal climate ... Intelligent Design should be taught in public schools, Spencer plays ...

Fine fellow traveller there LR.... got any actual science.?

You do know that a downward trend in stratosphere temperature is an AGW signal???

and sott.net. ???!!!!...another whacky blogger - with a right wing agenda.....no wonder you are afraid to put your attribution sources....I see some of your posts got moved to conspiracy....that's where they belong.

 

[Trakar]

I don't believe I know theozonehole, I'll check it out a bit.

Site is fine, the problem is that your graph only covers the stratosphere directly over the ozone hole over the Antarctic. It is not a measure of global stratospheric temperature.

Try these for a global perspective

or this one is nice

Source: http://www.climate.gov/news-feature.../state-climate-2011-stratospheric-temperature

 

[Trakar]

I think you need to do your research a little better. Go to the source of the temperature record.

Perhaps you should follow your own advice and try starting by using legitimate science sites and sources.

 

[Yerushalmi]

Ah, Randi's million dollar prize is safe,...but, more importantly, you stated that the contradiction which Goddard presented was valid, I simply asked you to explain why you felt that what Goddard presented was a valid contradiction? Did you independently investigate the evidence he claimed supported his assertions? Did you look the larger context of the quoted statements within the actual full articles? Did you research to see if there was any published science in support of, or refuting/modifying those papers? Did you consider and weigh all of the available evidences and then come to a decision that Goddard was making an objective and valid observation?

If not, why not?

Do I have a paid subscription to Time magazine that allows me to read the 1970s article in full? Do I have time to independently read a dozen or half-dozen science papers? I brought the quote here to ask you people if you knew the answer. But all I'm getting is ad hominem attacks on Goddard and, frankly, on me too, like

Furthermore, I never said it was a valid contradiction. I said it was an apparent contradiction. And I even brought up a parallel example involving body heat to demonstrate that I understand that such things are possible and don't dismiss them out of hand. But nobody's bothering to answer my question!

What I am saying, is that what authors paid and published by Time magazine write, is largely irrelevant to a discussion about climate science

This is one of the two possible answers that I presented in my previous post. That Time Magazine is run by idiots who don't know what they're talking about. I would accept that as an answer. Heck, you had that CNN woman last year asking if the asteroid about to fly by Earth was due to global warming! I know how science-ignorant journalists can be.

So if the answer is that Time magazine is made up of idiots, my question is as follows: which of the two things Time blamed for polar vortexes (global cooling and global warming) is not supported by the science? Or is it both?

slightly (but only just) more important might be what Goddard thinks about climate science.

What the heck do I care what Goddard thinks about climate science? Random guy on the internet I'd never heard of? To me he was just the last person down the line after a blog I read linked to a blog that linked to another blog that linked to Goddard. It took me three different clicks just to get to his site from the blog that called my attention to the contradiction, and I brought his page here merely because the closer you get to the primary source the more accurate the information is. Had I been able to access the Time archives I would've linked to it directly instead of to him when asking you guys the question.

What is ultimately the most important thing in this discussion, however, is what you understand and don't understand about climate science

I understand a small amount. I am also aware that much of what I thought I understood is at best misleading or at worse actively false. Prior to a few months ago I thought GW wasn't happening at all, when a conversation with somebody else triggered a reassessment. As of yesterday, after reading that climate report from the UK, I understand a lot more and feel more comfortable with the "A" in AGW. I am still on the fence as regards to its reversibility and seriousness. These things take time.

and what you have done to gain what understandings you do have.

Until now, nothing. Climate science was never the focus of my interests, so my understanding of it was seriously flawed because it was made up of what I happened to come across while reading things that interested me more. Since I'm right-wing, then yeah... up until the aforementioned conversation a few months ago, I thought Arctic ice was "rebounding" because right-wing blogs kept repeating that assertion once every couple of years and I had never seen a long-term graph. Seeing said graph was the proximate trigger for my decision to do a conscious reassessment. "What do you think you know, and why do you think you know it?"

Not really, this is an internet forum, it might be a place to learn a bit about resources that others have gained knowledge from, but neither discussion forums nor blogs are good places to try and learn science, especially when that science has a potentially controversial political aspect imposed upon it.

Then what are you all doing here if you're not trying to convince each other of the science?

 

[Laidbackracer]

http://www.drroyspencer.com

is the source of the graph LR is peddling....

Yknow the same guy that is a creationist



Fine fellow traveller there LR.... got any actual science.?

You do know that a downward trend in stratosphere temperature is an AGW signal???

When you dont like the facts you try to destroy the man?

You are going against the UAH (The University of Alabama in Huntsville)

Perhaps you also think the RSS record is bogus?

http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png

Breach of rule 5 removed. Do not hotlink images from other sites without permission.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

The Stratospheric temps have been level for the past decade just like the Troposphere temps...this is the point, co2 is not having an effect.

The data shows the story, no rise in temps. Time to get off the wagon.

 

[Laidbackracer]

Perhaps you should follow your own advice and try starting by using legitimate science sites and sources.

The UAH and RSS graphs are taken directly from their websites. Your reference is adjusted (manipulated).

 

[Trakar]

The UAH and RSS graphs are taken directly from their websites. Your reference is adjusted.

Links please

 

[macdoc]

You are obviously not aware of the ENSO system. Simple fact: La Nina cools the planet while El Nino warms. A cool PDO cycle (30 years) encourages more La Nina and vice versa. Its about spatial movements of ocean SST's that influence ENSO.

I am very aware of ENSO and you have no idea of what a climate driver is.

None of what you state are cooling or warming the planet...they are indicators of heat moving within the global system. Ever heard of the Indian Ocean warm pool

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00343-009-9148-5#page-1

Learn some science.

A new study adds to mounting evidence that cooling in the tropical Pacific Ocean is the cause of the global warming hiatus, a slow-down in the rise of average temperatures that began around 1998.

The eastern equatorial Pacific is well known to have an outsize influence on global weather. Years-long ocean trends such as El Niño and La Niña cause alternate warming and cooling of the sea surface there, with effects on monsoons and temperatures around the world. Now a modelling study by researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California, indicates that a decadal La Niña-like cooling trend affecting as little as 8% of Earth’s surface can explain the slower rise in global temperatures.
“The equatorial Pacific cooling turns out to be strong enough to offset the general rise in temperature induced by anthropogenic greenhouse gases,” says Shang-Ping Xie, a climate modeller at Scripps and co-author of the study, which is published today in Nature1. Just as importantly, he says, the model helps to explain regional trends that seem to defy the global warming hiatus, including record-breaking heat in the United States last year, and the continued decline of Arctic sea ice.

Hot topic
Scientists have explored various explanations for the hiatus, including a reduction in energy reaching Earth, attributable to a prolonged minimum in solar activity2; a decline in the amount of heat-trapping water vapour in the stratosphere3; and an increase in atmospheric levels of sun-blocking particles produced by industrial activities and volcanoes4. Previous studies have also linked Pacific cooling to the hiatus, and have suggested that as the ocean surface cools, currents deep beneath the surface are burying heat from the atmosphere5, 6

NAO, AO, ENSO, all affect WEATHER and local climate....not global temperatures.

Drivers like Milankovich cycles, volcanos and GHG and aerosols affect global climate.

You are way way out of your depth because you don't know or read the science...only the crap out of denier sites.

 

[Trakar]

[qimg]http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png[/qimg]

The Stratospheric temps have been level for the past decade just like the Troposphere temps...this is the point, co2 is not having an effect.

The data shows the story, no rise in temps. Time to get off the wagon.

Your presented graph refutes your statements indicating a rise of .125K per decade.

 

[Laidbackracer]

Links please

Look them up yourself, will take 5 mins. I am not going to spoon feed you, the links behind the images tell the story.

 

[Laidbackracer]

I am very aware of ENSO and you have no idea of what a climate driver is.

None of what you state are cooling or warming the planet...they are indicators of heat moving within the global system. Ever heard of the Indian Ocean warm pool

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00343-009-9148-5#page-1

Learn some science.



NAO, AO, ENSO, all affect WEATHER and local climate....not global temperatures.



Drivers like Milankovich cycles, volcanos and GHG and aerosols affect global climate.

You are way way out of your depth because you don't know or read the science...only the crap out of denier sites.

I dont think you are aware of ENSO, if so you would be aware of how the PDO controls ENSO and how the global temperature responds. Tell us how the PDO affects ENSO if you are so brilliant.

NAO, AO, ENSO, all affect WEATHER and local climate....not global temperatures.

This statement shows your ignorance.

 

[uke2se]

Look them up yourself, will take 5 mins. I am not going to spoon feed you, the links behind the images tell the story.

You are responsible for evidencing your assertions. Now, get the links, or kindly vacate the thread.

Personally, I think you are lying, just like the gurus you worship.

On a side-note: Another denier suddenly appears? Is it the cold winter, or has someone posted on a denier blog that JREF is soft on science denial?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here we go, an irrefutable graph of 13 years of recovery over the last 31 years. Checkmate warmers

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ArcticEscalatorv2.gif

Breach of rule 5 removed. Do not hotlink images from other sites without permission.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

 

[Laidbackracer]

You are responsible for evidencing your assertions. Now, get the links, or kindly vacate the thread.

Personally, I think you are lying, just like the gurus you worship.

On a side-note: Another denier suddenly appears? Is it the cold winter, or has someone posted on a denier blog that JREF is soft on science denial?

A simple right click on the image reveals the source. The sources are from the official UAH and RSS websites. If you think I am lying about the source you had better prove your accusation or join the list of Ad Hom users of this forum.

 

[uke2se]

A simple right click on the image reveals the source. The sources are from the official UAH and RSS websites. If you think I am lying about the source you had better prove your accusation or join the list of Ad Hom users of this forum.

Provide the links. I'll continue to assume you're lying until you do so. Nobody is going to do your job for you.

I understand that you are trying to trick us with raw data, and that the word "adjusted" to you means something nefarious, but it's just too much fun watching another blog-jockey jostle for links that aren't tainted with Wattsuphisbutt or something similar.

 

[macdoc]

how the global temperature responds

It doesn't - it is not a driver....you don't get that do you ...you are just shuffling heat around to different parts of the ocean which affects local climates and weather...it does NOT impact global temperatures.

A volcano does, GHG and S02 do, orbitals do, decadal oscillations do not other than a small affect on albedo in the north.

So you think Exxon head and all the world's climate scientists with the exception of a very few cranks are wrong and you are correct???

You can't even use the terminology correctly.
You don't attribute quotes and graphs and then I find them from non-science sites and clearly altered and you expect to be taken seriously.??

You give up on the sun now?? trying for another wrongheaded idea? - you've used up your allowance of foolish ideas.

Here you go.....this is not news...

The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) influence sea surface temperatures, sea level pressure, and surface winds in very similar ways. The most obvious difference between the PDO and ENSO is the time scale. Whereas ENSO events tend to persist on the order of one year, the PDO signature can last up to 30 years (Mantua, 2001).

Additionally, while the PDO primarily affects the North Pacific region, its effects can be felt near the equator.
Conversely, ENSO primarily affects the climate of lower latitudes, but its secondary effects are felt in the North Pacific (Mantua, 2001).

A positive, or warm phase PDO, produces climate and circulation patterns that are very similar to El Niño. Likewise, a negative, or cool phase PDO, produces climate and circulation patterns similar to La Niña (Gershunov and Barnett, 1998). This is documented in the following two figures, which show how sea surface temperatures and surface winds are influenced by (1) the positive and negative phases of the PDO and (2) El Niño and La Niña phases of ENSO. Dark red and dark blue indicate temperature anomalies of +0.8 C and -0.6 C, respectively. Wind stress directions and magnitudes are indicated by vectors.



Source: Mantua, 2000

Numerous studies have attempted to determine the effect of the PDO and ENSO on each other. The results have been largely inconclusive and/or contradictory. However, a study by Gershunov and Barnett (1998) shows that the PDO has a modulating effect on the climate patterns resulting from ENSO. The climate signal of El Niño is likely to be stronger when the PDO is highly positive; conversely the climate signal of La Niña will be stronger when the PDO is highly negative. This does not mean that the PDO physically controls ENSO, but rather that the resulting climate patterns interact with each other.

http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/645fall2003_web.dir/Jason_Amundson/enso.htm

These are REGIONAL climate affects....El Nino has a strong influence on weather and climate in Australia,

Australian rainfall patterns during El Niño events
www.bom.gov.au › Climate › Seasonal Outlooks › ENSO Wrap-Up‎
Figure 1: Australian Winter/Spring mean rainfall deciles for twelve El Niño events. ... of the season can be replaced by milder, wetter weather in the second part.

La Nina in S America...

La Nina Floods Turn Deadly in Colombia - AccuWeather
www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/la-nina-floods...deadly.../41684‎
Nov 16, 2010 - This year, the rain season has been enhanced by the onset of La Nina, which typically produces more rain across northern South America.

They are regional changes....La Nina can cool North Americaas SST drop in the Pacific.

They are not drivers of global climate change, they are impacted by AGW as it feeds more energy into the entire system.

You just have no idea what you are talking about and you mish mash terms and put up distorted graphs as somehow proving there is no AGW.

Thesis failed.