Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[macdoc]

Arnold - have you answered the question yet?

Does C02 absorb IR??
Such a simple question yet you avoid it in a science forum...tch tch and you expect people to take you seriously

•••

The world is moving on despite your noise.
I was pleasantly surprised the IPCC pulled fewer punches this time.

Moving on to science instead of nonsense from the denier cadre.

Warming climate may spread drying to a third of Earth, says study
9 hours ago
Warming climate may spread drying to a third of earth, says study
The U.S. corn belt and many other regions around the world may be at greater risk of drought by 2100 as warmer temperatures wring more moisture from the soil. (Cathy Haglund, Flickr)
Increasing heat is expected to extend dry conditions to far more farmland and cities by the end of the century than changes in rainfall alone, says a new study. Much of the concern about future drought under global warming has focused on rainfall projections, but higher evaporation rates may also play an important role as warmer temperatures wring more moisture from the soil, even in some places where rainfall is forecasted to increase, say the researchers.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-03-climate-earth.html#jCp

in the yes it's us category....

New Southern Hemisphere climate data provides clearer global picture
17 hours ago by Rebecca Scott
New Southern Hemisphere climate data provides clearer global picture

Field work in the Indian Ocean - This coral off the Broome coast, Western Australia, stores information about past climate. Credit: Eric Matson Australian Institute of Marine Science
A new international study has published the most comprehensive Southern Hemisphere reconstruction of past climate records, revealing a clearer climate picture of the globe's temperature history than ever before.
The study revealed that over the past 1000 years temperature variations have differed greatly between the two hemispheres, yet it confirmed they shared the one warm period after the 1970s.
Led by the Oeschger Centre at the University of Bern, the Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL and the University of Melbourne, the study Inter-hemispheric temperature variability over the past millennium was published today in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Co-author Dr Joelle Gergis, ARC Fellow from the University of Melbourne, said the study finally put the Southern Hemisphere on the map in terms of recording past climate variations over the past 1000 years.
"Our findings showed there were considerable decade-to-decade regional temperature variations in the Southern Hemisphere, that were different to the Northern Hemisphere,'' she said.
"The Southern Hemisphere is a vast oceanic region that is influenced by ocean circulation features such as El Niño. Our study showed that these internal climate cycles may have played a role in influencing regional climate compared to the land-dominated Northern Hemisphere, where external changes in volcanic and solar variations have a more direct influence.
"But despite the two hemispheres behaving differently over the past 1000 years, what is consistent is the recent warming in the last 40 years.

more
http://phys.org/news/2014-03-southern-hemisphere-climate-clearer-global.html

 

[Corsair 115]

So I'm visiting Forbes.com to check out the latest MLB club valuations, and I happen to notice the following article:

The IPCC's Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science

Any of the well-versed climate folks here wish to take a run at analyzing this piece?

 

[Mikemcc]

Written by Joe Bast of the Heartland Institute and using the NIPCC as it's reference... hmmm. Also fails to reveal what 'Climate Science' was 'ignored'.

 

[Megalodon]

So I'm visiting Forbes.com to check out the latest MLB club valuations, and I happen to notice the following article:

The IPCC's Latest Report Deliberately Excludes And Misrepresents Important Climate Science

Any of the well-versed climate folks here wish to take a run at analyzing this piece?

Can't really argue with it. The article is well written, and good points were made. As a scientist I can only accept that some things are not so clear-cut as I believed. Some deep re-thinking is in order.

 

[macdoc]

How do you get that tongue out of your cheek since it's so deeply embedded..

Shall we have a singer-a-long to celebrate your enlightenment.

 

[Megalodon]

First, I'm being quite serious.
Of course, it's easy to miss it, given my posting history. However, I think the period
April-August will be determinant in proving AGW false.

 

[Trakar]

Both sides are chock full of partisan political policy advocacy groups

As a matter of fact the latest IPCC report is mostly about policy

What "both sides" are you talking about?

 

[Trakar]

No hurricanes in the USA 2000 , 2001 , 2006

Low Atlantic hurricane activity in the 1970s and 1980s compared to the past 270 years

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v447/n7145/abs/nature05895.html

And you understand the significance of this, with respect to AGW, to be what?

 

[Trakar]

First, I'm being quite serious.
Of course, it's easy to miss it, given my posting history. However, I think the period
April-August will be determinant in proving AGW false.

"proving false" is a pretty high bar.

I hear the House has its own little statement to make today.

 

[Arnold Martin]

.
During the past 100 years temperatures have only increased by 0.85*C.

Why does the IPCC require a 2600 page document to state that ?

 

[CapelDodger]

These are partisan political policy advocacy groups, please link to the "growing number of scientists" you referred to.

These would be the same ever-growing number of scientists who realise Darwinism is a lie but are too terrified to say so in public.

I'm with Megalodon : by the end of NH Summer we'll have learned an important lesson. Possibly even by the end of today.

One thing I know for sure, I feel colder this morning than I did yesterday morning. That puts AGW in a whole new light for me.

 

[CapelDodger]

.
During the past 100 years temperatures have only increased by 0.85*C.

Why does the IPCC require a 2600 page document to state that ?

It doesn't. The WG2 report contains a great deal more than that. You can actually look at it yourself rather than depend on Heatland, Forbes and other interpreters (and interpreters of interpreters) who do not have your best interests in mind.

 

[CapelDodger]

No hurricanes in the USA 2000 , 2001 , 2006

Which is unfortunate for the countries which got hit instead. None of them mine, though, so why should I care?

Low Atlantic hurricane activity in the 1970s and 1980s compared to the past 270 years

How very boring that must have been. Even the UK had one in '87.

 

[Arnold Martin]

.
I have tried several times over several years to find out exactly how the IPCC "scientists" calculate temperatures

It is hard to get a straight answer .... not sure why ..... it has always made me suspicious.

The way I understand it they take the highest daily temp and the lowest daily temp and average it.

I would think that using a 24 hour temperature average would be more accurate

See my next post for an actual example

 

[Arnold Martin]

.
Here is a record of temperatures at one weather station in Winnipeg over 24 hours

The true average temperature for the 24 hour period comes out to -9.8333 degrees
Using the IPCC method produces a temperature of -10.5 degrees

A difference of 0.6667 degrees
Which one is correct ?

 

[Arnold Martin]

Here is one more example

True 24 hour average temp is -4.046*C

Using the IPCC hi-low average comes out to -5.500*C

A difference of 1.454* C

 

[Iamme]

Arnold, that`s an interesting point. But could it be that for a few reasons its acceptable for them to just avg the high and low temp?
.
1. That perhaps going back many years ago, that`s all the data there is. So by continuing with the same method of recording temps, they can more accurately compare current temp records with past temp records?
.
2. That it might be unnecessary to record readings once every hour, because perhaps temperatures manage to average out to be quite close to the average of the high and low temp, over a course of time? (As an example; how pretty accurate polling can be done usung say 2,000 people rather than having to go thru the work in polling say all 150,000,000 adults.)
.
3. And lets just suppose that there IS an inaccuracy with using only the twice daily temp reads. Maybe at least the inaccurate result would at least be like consistently inconsistant so that any deviation in those recorded temps would still show a pretty accurate deviation.
.
What i said above, of course being made on the assumption your assertion is correct and their average daily temperatures are taken as you claim.

 

[a_unique_person]

.
I have tried several times over several years to find out exactly how the IPCC "scientists" calculate temperatures

It is hard to get a straight answer .... not sure why ..... it has always made me suspicious.

The way I understand it they take the highest daily temp and the lowest daily temp and average it.

I would think that using a 24 hour temperature average would be more accurate

See my next post for an actual example

The scientists use anomolies to track the temperature.

They use high/low because that is what the historical temperature record gives them, not because 100 years ago the scientists back then decided to set up a fraudulent representation of temperatures for when global warming happened. You have to work with the data you are given, and it's never perfect.

 

[CapelDodger]

.
I have tried several times over several years to find out exactly how the IPCC "scientists" calculate temperatures

Thgere aren't any IPCC scientists who calculate temperatures. Temperature series are maintained by organisations such as NASA, the NOAA, UK Met Office, Australian BoM, and so on.

If you're unaware of this you can't have looked into this matter at all, frankly.

It is hard to get a straight answer .... not sure why ..... it has always made me suspicious.

If you checked NASA, NOAA, etc they'd set you straight.

The way I understand it they take the highest daily temp and the lowest daily temp and average it.

Is that what NOAA etc say?

I would think that using a 24 hour temperature average would be more accurate

Hourly data is available for many automated sites these days; you can get the data from whoever collects and maintains it then make any calculations you like. It won't change the fact that the world is warming due to the enhanced greenhouse effect (itself a result of humanity's industriousness) and will continue to.

See my next post for an actual example

It's an example of something, I'll give you that.

Using your method of calculating temperatures, how different is the global warming trend from the normal one over the last thirty years? Please show your workings and the number and distribution of sites you're using.

 

[CapelDodger]

3. And lets just suppose that there IS an inaccuracy with using only the twice daily temp reads. Maybe at least the inaccurate result would at least be like consistently inconsistant so that any deviation in those recorded temps would still show a pretty accurate deviation.

Exactly so.

What i said above, of course being made on the assumption your assertion is correct and their average daily temperatures are taken as you claim.

For historical reasons they are, of course, but high and low temperature records are available separately anyway.

I've noticed that AGW deniers love to focus on the past; I suspect they find the present and future too appalling to contemplate.