Merged AGW without HADCRUT3

[BenBurch]

Why are all of the denialist trolls so similar?

They get all their arguments from the same right-wing web sites.

 

[mhaze]

I'm in an Ambien stupor right now. Will reply tomorrow! I've enjoyed reading your posts.

I notice you are getting a barrage of doubletalk rightthink. Let's go back to basics:

A. WarmerThink holds that the 20th century is largely a temperature rise due to GHG increase, with the valley in the rise from 1950-1970 due to the Montreal Protocol, our reductions of pollutants. This theory is at present thrown out the window, but it's interesting for this reason: It held that we caused the rise, and we took positive action, and that caused a temporary decline. By this logic we should of course take more "positive actions".

A1. Mathematically this is a curve fit with a simple polynomial line - several positive factors, and one negative factor. That's why it's accurate to say that Warmers project a short term linear temperature increase trend.

Fact.

B. Now comes along another period of slumping temperature (2000 - present). Certainly looks like what happened in the previous "valley". Can't continue the old theory, can we? Old projections do not fit the curve.

B2. Now Warmers scramble to chatter about natural variation and "other factors". But they won't quantify them. Because going down that scary road of quantifying non-CO2 factors is the actuality of assigning a lower factor to CO2.

B3. Mathematically, this is a curve fit with a huge natural cyclic variation, a background "secular line" which may be attributed either (or in part) to CO2 and/or a long term climate trend. No factor is needed for the 1950-1970 "cooling trend being due to reduction of aerosols and the Montreal Protocal". That is shown false.

Fact.

I guess that's at the root of a great deal of the controversy. Climate Modeling done with slugged parameters and presumptions tracking (A/A1 style) is garbage. Now the real scientists regroup and try to figure it out better.

 

[Malerin]

Besides noting that I have 'serious issues' your entire response seems evasive and overall indicative of poor thought process. For instance, in a question about whether the solar output has varied, you responded by asking if the earth's cloud cover had varied, implying that the clouds are on the sun. In response to a question on whether you even bothered to check if the sun's output has varied, you responded by discussing negative feedbacks on the CO2 warming process. In response to a query on how anyone intelligent could possibly be seeking discussion when they have not even bothered to read the evidence, you link me to more 'evidence' you have manifestly not even read.

I suggest that your own issues are not particularly deep, and while a break from posting would barely benefit you at all, given that you have pondered this question for (according to you) years without having bothered to read anything much, I assure you the benefit to us would be rather more obvious.

I've put one person on ignore since I've got here (Dancing David). There's a cuckoo in every clock I suppose.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

After complaining of strawmen, mhaze constructs these scarecrows:

I notice you are getting a barrage of doubletalk rightthink. Let's go back to basics:

A. WarmerThink holds that the 20th century is largely a temperature rise due to GHG increase, with the valley in the rise from 1950-1970 due to the Montreal Protocol, our reductions of pollutants. This theory is at present thrown out the window, but it's interesting for this reason: It held that we caused the rise, and we took positive action, and that caused a temporary decline. By this logic we should of course take more "positive actions".

Which Montreal Protocol was that? The Montreal Protocol of 1987 dealt with CFCs and HCFCs, which were affecting the ozone layer. So far as I know, the Montreal Protocol was not motivated by climate issues and was not expected to have any significant effect on climate.

A1. Mathematically this is a curve fit with a simple polynomial line - several positive factors, and one negative factor. That's why it's accurate to say that Warmers project a short term linear temperature increase trend.

Any non-constant polynomial goes to plus or minus infinity in the long run. If you can cite an intelligent source that's using polynomials to model long-term climate, I'd like to see the citation.

 

[Malerin]

Malerin
I'm not sure what the "somethings" are that don't fit.

The things that are currently bugging me:
-The 2002-present cooling trend
-The 1995 to present statistically insignificant warming trend.
-The inability to create a 5 or 10 yr prediction of something as basic as whether the Earth is getting hotter or colder.
-The admission of a climate debate going on among scientists
-A possible warming period in recent history similar to this one
-Basing long-term climate trends on an incredibly small sample size of global temperatures
-The admission that physical processes not understood may be at work.

These last have less an effect, but still raise questions in my mind:
- The Himalayan glacier/African crop production claim.
- Data from Chinese weather monitoring stations
- A period of rapid warming in the Arctic from 1910-1940.
- What would disconfirm the AGW hypothesis? I can't get a straight answer on that.

AGW overlays natural variations, NAO, ENSO etc.

Aerosols, also a function of "anthro" offset AGW by way of global dimming..( up until the 70s there was little or no controls )..until SO2 abatement was in full swing the rising S02 and particulate load over the period in question easily offset the C02....so of that continues with our current aerosol output against our C02.

So the effect of CO2 is being mitigated by our aeresol output to this day? That is the reason why it's been cooling since 2002?

it's not a solution - it's a delay in dealing with the worst consequences.We could after all as a society pump enough S02 into the stratosphere to lower temps.....any advanced nation could do that independently.

I heard the Freakenomics author talk about that. Basically mimicing another volcanic eruption.

If you pull back and look at the larger picture and accept the role of C02 and it's magnifying partner, water vapour, in magnifying trends ( in both directions ) historically of the global climate then you must answer this question.....

Can lifting the C02 to levels unseen in 15 million years be without serious consequence to the climate regime, the Holocene which featured a narrow range of temperature upon which humans built their civilization.?

I don't know. If you had asked me in 95 if we could continue to emit GHG's with no effect, I would have laughed. Of course not. Since 95, we've put a lot of GHG's into the air with no statistically significant warming. I would never have thought that would happen.

I think we have an effect on the climate (how could we not?), but if it's on the order of 1 degree per century (extrapolating from the last 15 years), I don't see the need for sweeping draconian policy measures. We have time for a gradual incremental move away from fossil fuels.

If, as rational people around the world have determined, the answer is an absolute NO...then the rest of the pieces fall into place and it is a question of timing and what if anything can be done to address the problem.

There seem to be a lot of rational people who are also claiming "I don't know". Put me in that camp. Before we pursue massively disruptive policy changes, I want that vocal minority to pretty much be on par with flat earthers.

The science community got there about 15 years ago and even the fossil fuel company scientists drew the same conclusion at the time but were muzzled by their management.

I've used this line many times. The "overwhelming consensus" argument. But if that is true, why is there still a debate going on? Could an overwhelming majority of scientists be wrong. It's happened in the past.

The world has got there in Copenhagen as to the risk, a few flat earthers haven't got the memo.

The world? The public is moving away from you on this:

Though the majority of voters see global warming as a serious problem, 50% continue to place the blame on long-term planetary trends as opposed to human activity, tying the highest level measured over the past year. Thirty-seven percent (37%) blame humans for global warming. These numbers reflect the continuing trend away from blaming human activity for the phenomenon.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...rrent_events/environment_energy/energy_update

The political effort regarding a solution is a quagmire...

Because public support is vanishing.

Aerosols of our making are difficult to assess as sometimes they are negative drivers and at other times positive but all are short lived in comparison with carbon which is inexorable in it's cumulative energy gain.

What other drivers and feedback loops are in play that we don't know about (or have inaccurately assessed the effect of)? We only have about 100 years of accurate global measurements to go on. Is it possible we're in a naturally occuring warming cycle, which accounts for much of the warming? I don't mean possible like a-teacup-around-jupiter-possible. A live possibility that we would not be too surprised to learn about.

Instead of trying to sort natural cycles which can magnify ( 1998 El Nino ) the AGW or ameliorate it ( back to back La Nina's ) from the main AGW driver which is fossil carbon and secondarily land use which also impacts the carbon cycle......look at the larger picture of the 15 million year carbon load and ask yourself about consequences.

The consequences are everywhere visible even now and we're not even close to what's in the pipeline.

Don't bog in the local picture - look at the larger one.

The consequences don't seem catastrophic. If the 15 yr trend we're in is accurate, that's a degree over a hundred years. We have time. If the 2002-present trend is accurate, the solution is already in place because we've been cooling since 2002.

I'm sure you've seen this graph:
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg

The worst case trend is is about 1910-1999 or so. That's over a degree of warming in 90 years (if I'm reading the chart right). Of course, that's cherry-picking. However, from 1900- 2000, there's a half a degree of warming over a century. That does not seem particularly alarming to me. What are the effects of the Earth heating up HALF a degree in the next 100 years? I can't imagine they are catastrophic.

Of course, the graph itself represents not even a blink of the eye in geologic times. What does the 1700-present trend look like? 500 to present? How do we know the 100 years we're looking at isn't a short-term trend within a much longer trend?

 

[Gaspode]

Keep it civil please. Remember to attack the argument, not the arguer.

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

 

[Reality Check]

The things that are currently bugging me:
-The 2002-present cooling trend
-The 1995 to present statistically insignificant warming trend.

These 2 points should not bug you.
It is possible to cherry pick starting and ending points in the global temperature data to prove that the temperatures are rising, falling or staying the same. That is because of the natural variability of the climate.

What is important is the long term trend over many decades. I suggest that you go to the Wood For Trees web site and do a few graphs for yourself. Also read the notes where the point I make above is demonstrated. Remember that his trend lines are linear least-squares regressions - climate scientists have more sophisticated techniques to generate curves that fit the data.

That is applicable to your last point:

The worst case trend is is about 1910-1999 or so. That's over a degree of warming in 90 years (if I'm reading the chart right). Of course, that's cherry-picking. However, from 1900- 2000, there's a half a degree of warming over a century. That does not seem particularly alarming to me. What are the effects of the Earth heating up HALF a degree in the next 100 years? I can't imagine they are catastrophic.

You are assuming that the trend is linear. But that is not the case. The slope starts are relatively flat in the 1860's and steadily rises throughout. You could use the worst case linear trends (a little over 0.4 C in the last 20 years or about 0.5 C in the last 40 years). If you want to know what the projected effect of the Earth heating up HALF a degree in any time period than I suggest that you read the AR4 report.

 

[DogB]

- The Himalayan glacier/African crop production claim.

My suggestion for this point. Ignore the IPCC. Their bias/incompetence has been revealed and that has huge political implications.

But fortunately for us on this board we are arguing on a scientific basis and the IPCC’s behaviour doesn’t impact on the science so IMHO we can safely ignore them.

ETA: Of course that won't stop stuff like this...

If you want to know what the projected effect of the Earth heating up HALF a degree in any time period than I suggest that you read the AR4 report.

 

[Reality Check]

My suggestion for this point. Ignore the IPCC. Their bias/incompetence has been revealed and that has huge political implications.

My suggestion for this point. Read the IPCC report from Working Group I (The Physical Science Basis). It is not biased. It is competent. The political uses to which their report has been put has huge political implications.
Or you could look at the reports from the other working groups which are a little biased and have some errors, blunders and outright lies.

But fortunately for us on this board we are arguing on a scientific basis and the IPCC’s behaviour doesn’t impact on the science so IMHO we can safely ignore them.

ETA: Of course that won't stop stuff like this...

The AR4 report does have errors in it like all big complex reports.
But if you do not like their projections then you can always just look up the papers that they cite. Or you can look for other papers.

 

[Reality Check]

Malerin, If you want to go straight to the papers about the impacts of global warming then this blog has a list: Peer reviewed impacts of global warming.

 

[Haig]

impacts of global warming then this blog has a list:

Interesting list, but the science isn't settled that it's humans causing the climate change.

The Vikings would have had a similar list of negatives (granted, not Peer-reviewed) when they where forced out of Greenland due to climate change.

The point is, it wasn't humans then and it's not certain it's us now IMHO

 

[Malerin]

These 2 points should not bug you.
It is possible to cherry pick starting and ending points in the global temperature data to prove that the temperatures are rising, falling or staying the same. That is because of the natural variability of the climate.

I'm not cherry-picking the end-point. I'm just using the present moment. What else would I use? Picking ANY start point on the graph can lead to claims of cherry-picking. Suppose I pick 1940-present. That's an increase of about .2 degree over 70 years, which I don't believe is statisically significant warming. If I pick 1900-present, there's about .4 degrees of warming over a 110 year period. That doesn't seem to have had really much of an effect on us.

What is important is the long term trend over many decades. I suggest that you go to the Wood For Trees web site and do a few graphs for yourself. Also read the notes where the point I make above is demonstrated. Remember that his trend lines are linear least-squares regressions - climate scientists have more sophisticated techniques to generate curves that fit the data.

Yeah, that's a nice website, thanks! I'm using HADCRUT3 (cause it was the first choice), and going from 1900-2010. This is resulting in around .4 degrees of warming.

That is applicable to your last point:

You are assuming that the trend is linear. But that is not the case. The slope starts are relatively flat in the 1860's and steadily rises throughout. You could use the worst case linear trends (a little over 0.4 C in the last 20 years or about 0.5 C in the last 40 years).

Wait, why are you suddenly using a smaller trend size? What's wrong with 1900-present? If you want to go back only 20 years, why can't I suggest we go back 15 years, where there's been no statistically significant warming? The data set we have to work with is so small, people can use it to support vastly different claims.

And how do we know it's non-linear? If AGW is correct, I would expect an accelerating warming rate as we pour more and more GHG's into the atmosphere. Instead, we have a 40 yr flat trend (from 1940-1980), a statistically insignificant trend (from 1995-present), and a cooling trend (2002-present). I don't think you can hand-wave all that away with claims of "cherry picking".

If you want to know what the projected effect of the Earth heating up HALF a degree in any time period than I suggest that you read the AR4 report.

According to the data, we already know what a half degree of warming is like because we've experienced it from the 1880's to the present. We're still around, global population has exploded, longevity has increased, etc. I don't really feel affected by the ravages of half a degree of global warming. Do you?

 

[Wangler]

So, you arrogant little such and such, we're supposed to follow your argument and do your research for you?

No. I rather assumed you would do the research for you. Regardless of whether I had read the full papers or not, I wouldn't expect you believe my take on said papers without reading them yourself.

You haven't read the papers. You have nothing to contribute. The sole and only reason you believe that Global Warming isn't happening isn't the science. You haven't read it. It isn't the evidence. You haven't checked it out. It isn't any analysis at all.

I never claimed to do analysis. We were discussing the climate history of Greenland, and I presented a summary list of papers about that subject.

And yes, I have not read them all.

A convincing abstract? ANYONE can write a convincing abstract. I could write a convincing abstract on necromancy or alchemy, or telekinesis.

But, could you get the abstract through the peer-review process?

It has been shown that all but one of the primary papers listed on that summary page were published in peer-reviewed journals. Ben was mistaken.

The referees did not think that the papers were to be summarily dismissed.

Do you have issue with the scientific content of the papers? Or my perceived to be sloppy presentation thereof?

If you are concerned about the summaries, or the abstracts, not accurately representing the true findings of the papers, why don't we look at the one or two that are accessable for free, and discuss in detail?

It's that you are too little and too wrapped up in yourself to possibly accept that you might be negatively impacting others lives, that your little world and your little concerns might hurt others, that you might have to make the teensiest, smallest little inconvenience for yourself and give up something. Maybe you have to buy light bulbs that cost a little more. Maybe you don't have a black roof. Maybe you drive a smaller car.

I don't know what to say about this paragraph..I'll let it speak for itself.

But no. Instead, everyone is a liar, because you don't want to have to worry about any of your choices hurting anyone else.

I don't recall calling everyone a liar. Can you provide a link to the incriminating post?

It makes your life easier, and you can go to sleep with less fear and less anguish because you can content yourself with the knowledge that its all stupid environmentalists, and you couldn't possibly be doing anything to hurt anyone.

Uhh, no.

You're a poor innocent victim who is right about everything.

Wrong on both counts, here.

There is a segment of this country that needs to grow the hell up. I think there's some people who need to look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves "Am I an adult? Can my actions effect others? Can anything I do cause harm to someone else? Or am I a kid, a person who cannot even be responsible for my own self?"

I agree with what you are saying here.

Let me know if you would like to discuss the papers we can get at, and what they actually say about Greenland's climate history.

 

[GreyICE]

No. I rather assumed you would do the research for you. Regardless of whether I had read the full papers or not, I wouldn't expect you believe my take on said papers without reading them yourself.

Which was impossible.

Fail.

I never claimed to do analysis. We were discussing the climate history of Greenland, and I presented a summary list of papers about that subject.

And yes, I have not read them all.

Or any of them, because the links are dead.

Fail.

But, could you get the abstract through the peer-review process?

It has been shown that all but one of the primary papers listed on that summary page were published in peer-reviewed journals. Ben was mistaken.

The referees did not think that the papers were to be summarily dismissed.

Do you have issue with the scientific content of the papers? Or my perceived to be sloppy presentation thereof?

If you are concerned about the summaries, or the abstracts, not accurately representing the true findings of the papers, why don't we look at the one or two that are accessable for free, and discuss in detail?

Why don't you read them first? Because I've absolutely read many papers. You've read, let me check, as far as I can tell, none.

What evidence has been presented, here or anywhere, that you have the background to discuss a scientific paper?

I will absolutely discuss them with you - as soon as you present evidence that you can discuss them. I do not see that that evidence exists. In fact I assumed it existed, until you presented evidence, repeatedly, that it did not.

At this point I must be convinced. If we are to discuss scientific papers, you must be competent to discuss them. Otherwise its lecturing, and I wouldn't even think of doing that for less than $150 an hour (and that's if I'm feeling nice).

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I'm not cherry-picking the end-point. I'm just using the present moment. What else would I use? Picking ANY start point on the graph can lead to claims of cherry-picking. Suppose I pick 1940-present. That's an increase of about .2 degree over 70 years, which I don't believe is statisically significant warming.

Statistical significance^WP has a technical meaning that's independent of your opinion.

I assume you're just comparing average temperatures (or some similar measure) for the start and end points. A more proper test of significance would look at all the years in between, using measures such as sample standard deviation^WP to estimate the system noise, and then compute the likelihood that any warming trend found in that entire set of statistics for all those years could have arisen by chance under the null hypothesis (which, in this case, would be the hypothesis that no warming has occurred). If that likelihood is less than the chosen threshold of statistical significance^WP, then the null hypothesis is rejected.

Looking at more years provides more data for the statistical tests. Looking at fewer years provides less data. It's like flipping a coin, where the null hypothesis is that heads and tails are equally likely. Getting heads on 8 out of 10 flips isn't statistically significant, and would not lead to rejection of the null hypothesis, but getting heads on 35 out of 50 flips is significant (even though the 70% rate of the larger experiment is lower than the 80% rate of the smaller experiment).

 

[Malerin]

Statistical significance^WP has a technical meaning that's independent of your opinion.

Of course. My opinion is based on the interview with Jones where he claimed "I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level."

From 1940-present, the trend is .03C per decade, which is much less than the .12C per decade. It's a longer trend, so I don't know if that makes .03C per decade warming statistically significant or not, but it doesn't seem like very much warming.

 

[Pixel42]

The things that are currently bugging me:
-The 2002-present cooling trend
-The 1995 to present statistically insignificant warming trend.

These two trends are both statistically insignificant, and are in fact identical (0.12C per decade in both cases). Why then do you include the words "statistically insignificant" for one and not the other?

It has been patiently explained to you why, with a signal to noise ratio as low as the one we're expecting, a statistically significant trend would be unlikely to be detected over a period of less than 30 years. Why then are you focusing exclusively on periods less than that rather than the longer periods over which there is a statistically significant trend, and acting surprised when no statistically significant trend is evident?

 

[DogB]

I don't know what to say about this paragraph..I'll let it speak for itself.

Good move. The perfection of the insanity would be spoiled by commentary.

 

[a_unique_person]

Of course. My opinion is based on the interview with Jones where he claimed "I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level."

From 1940-present, the trend is .03C per decade, which is much less than the .12C per decade. It's a longer trend, so I don't know if that makes .03C per decade warming statistically significant or not, but it doesn't seem like very much warming.

Don't expect the climate to have a continual forcing/response curve. The forcings and response are complex.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html

Understanding and attributing climate change.

 

[Reality Check]

Interesting list, but the science isn't settled that it's humans causing the climate change.

Peer reviewed impacts of global warming is not about AGW. Read the title of the blog entry. It is about the positive and negative aspects of GW (note the absense of A).

The Vikings would have had a similar list of negatives (granted, not Peer-reviewed) when they where forced out of Greenland due to climate change.

The point is, it wasn't humans then and it's not certain it's us now IMHO

The Vikings were not spewing out massive anounts of greenhouse gases. So yes it wasn't humans then and no one would think so.

No one thinks that it is certain that global warming is due to us. The scientific consensus is that it is very likely that some component of it is us.