Global warming discussion III

[r-j]

As far As I can see,

Well there is your problem right there.

20th March 2013, 08:42 AM

ok i take that as a no, you can't find anything wrong with realclimate, it merely contradicts your belief and that is the only reason you dislike the website.

Then you would be wrong. realclimate has no current research posted on the increasing snowfall, cold harsh winters, or the jet streams (that can be found using their search, or Google search)

Cold Winters Caused by Warmer Summers, Research Suggests
Jan. 16, 2012 — Scientists have offered up a convincing explanation for the harsh winters recently experienced in the Northern Hemisphere; increasing temperatures and melting ice in the Arctic regions creating more snowfall in the autumn months at lower latitudes.

Their findings may throw light on specific weather incidents such as the extremely harsh Florida winter of 2010 which ended up killing a host of tropical creatures, as well as the chaos-causing snow that fell on the UK in December 2010.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120112193430.htm

If the new idea that melting sea ice can lead to colder winters (which is quite possible of course), then we have not only a possible mechanism to explain why winters have not been warming, and another reason to push for solutions to human caused climate change.

The problem is that ignorant people want to use a warm winter as "proof" of global warming, then also say a cold winter is also "proof" of global warming.

Or to say an Australian heat wave is proof. Or unusual cold is proof. It makes it sound like some woo woo nonsense.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9087529#post9087529

There are multiple ways to look at the winter trend, the GISS map shows where it is getting colder. This was true in 2013, it's still true using 2014 data.

The NOAA data allows us to see it is the Northern Hemisphere land area that is showing the cooling trend.

 

[Reality Check]

r-j: Are you wrong about Cohen at. el. since 21 March 2013 now

Well there is your problem right there.

And there is your problem right there, r-j - reading comprehension !

As far As I can see, you brought up Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling Cohen et al(2012) on 9th January 2014 to support a claim that "But NH winters, even with the entire NH included, don't show warming right now. In fact, it's cooling, even with the entire NH included."
And then changed to That's not evidence of the cooling trend for the boreal winters. You know, the subject of Cohen et al(2012).
But this is not what Cohen et al (2012) actually say as I told you on 3 March 2014:

(emphasis added)
That is the first mention of the paper that I can find from you followed by an invalid claim about what the paper contains.

Cold Winters Caused by Warmer Summers, Research Suggests
does what you missed out, cite the actual paper
1.Judah L Cohen, Jason C Furtado, Mathew A Barlow, Vladimir A Alexeev, Jessica E Cherry. Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling. Environmental Research Letters, 2012; 7 (1): 014007 DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014007

On the other hand, r-j, feel free to extend your invalid claim that Cohen at. el. state that boreal winters are cooling (it is no trend) back to 21 March 2013.

 

[Reality Check]

There are multiple ways to look at the winter trend, the GISS map shows where it is getting colder. This was true in 2013, it's still true using 2014 data.

The NOAA data allows us to see it is the Northern Hemisphere land area that is showing the cooling trend.

Wrong - the NOAA data agrees with what Cohen et al (2012) stated in their abstract and within their paper.
From the abstract
Arctic warming, increasing snow cover and widespread boreal winter cooling Cohen et al(2012)

For the last two decades, large-scale cooling trends have existed instead across large stretches of eastern North America and northern Eurasia

ETA: That looks like the light blue regions in the GISS map maps. Which look almost balanced out by the red Arctic regions.
The Results and discussion section (which you have obviously still not read ) starts:

Trend analysis of annual land surface temperatures for the most recent two decades shows a continuation of the aforementioned warming trend (figure 1(a)). As shown in figure 1(b), for the same period over which annual-mean NH temperatures have increased, boreal winter (December, January and February (DJF)) NH winter land surface temperatures exhibit no linear trend. The absence of a warming trend in winter is especially surprising given traditional global warming theory and the divergence of observed winter trends from coupled model projections (figure 1(b), black line—only trends can be compared, as the historical experiments are not designed to replicate the actual climate, year by year). While the hemispheric winter trend is neutral, specific regions have experienced negative temperature trends. As shown in figure 1(c), spatially, the strongest winter cooling trends are observed over the eastern United States, southern Canada and much of northern Eurasia.

 

[Mikemcc]

... Obviously not from you, or anyone here. Of course actual scientists both talk about the theory, and know what it is.
...

So essentially all you can do is insult and then obfuscate by generating a spate of old cuttings that were covered in the lines immediately following the one that you quote picked - very poor form.

 

[Mikemcc]

r-j, do you agree with the following points?

1. CO2 is a known GHG, we understand the mechanism with great detail.
2. Humans emit nearly 10 billion tonnes of CO2 per annum.
3. Land changes (primarily human) add to the effective increase in CO2
4. Isotope analysis and CO2 concentration changes confirm the increase in CO2 is primarily due to human use of fossil fuels.
5. We know how much CO2 we have emitted and the excess CO2 matches that value once atmospheric fraction has been accounted for.
6. We know to a rather good degree the sensitivity of the global climate to the change in CO2 (most likely 3 deg C per doubling of CO2 concentration, though with a spread about that, but any realistic better would say between 2.5 and 3.5)
7. PDO, ENSO, etc only move energy within the system and this can affect the surface temperature. They cannot add or remove energy from the system as a whole.
8. There are other factors that drive global climate - Milankovitch cycles, the annual changes in orbital distance, and sun-spot cycles to name just three. But these affect climate either only very slightly or over very much longer time frames

 

[lomiller]

Here are a few examples from actual climate scientists, from a NOAA publication, about this very issue.

Did you even bother to read those before posting them?

It sure looks like you just goggled for the word theory and either didn't understand what you were reading or just didn't bother to read to at all. None of them support your claim.


Now are you going to keep posting random images or answer the questions regarding your posts?

“What do you find strange about Milankovitch cycles”

And

“Sunlight comes from cosmic cycles?”

I'll add one more to the list

"If those images somehow support your claim climate models are built on some "Theory of Global Warming" explain how.

 

[greybeard]

Did you even bother to read those before posting them?

It sure looks like you just goggled for the word theory and either didn't understand what you were reading or just didn't bother to read to at all. None of them support your claim.

Now are you going to keep posting random images or answer the questions regarding your posts?
“What do you find strange about Milankovitch cycles”

And

“Sunlight comes from cosmic cycles?”

I'll add one more to the list

"If those images somehow support your claim climate models are built on some "Theory of Global Warming" explain how.

From past form I would guess it will be the former. R-j likes to stick to the very narrow ground where he feels safest. Which is why we are experiencing deja vu all over again. If he tells us what he really thinks his posts might be moved to the conspiracy forum. Like when he told us temperature data was being improperly manipulated.

 

[r-j]

r-j, do you agree with the following points?

Don't change the subject. I've never questioned, denied or dismissed any scientific evidence in this thread. It's the unscientific woo woo claims that I am skeptical of.

Like when somebody claims there is no theory, even after I provided multiple links to scientific papers, even a definition from NASA, and directly quoted NOAA and other scientific bodies using various terms for the theory.

 

[r-j]

From past form I would guess it will be the former. R-j likes to stick to the very narrow ground where he feels safest.

Very unscientific. There is little reason to restate the obvious, like the basics of global warming theory (AGW, the enhanced greenhouse theory, the CO2 theory, global warming, the theory of global warming, it doesn't matter what you call it).

Unless the predictions made by theory run smack into reality, which so often behaves in ways that illustrate our lack of understanding about very complex systems, something any honest climate researcher will admit. That political/economic reasons, or worse, CT nonsense grabs onto any and all uncertainties and tries to claim we know nothing, that is a travesty, and also not scientific.

Both sides in the climate wars make these horrible errors, trying to take the high ground and completely dismiss anything that they have already decided can't be true. As if ceding any ground is an admission of defeat. It's why so many blogs are cesspools of smug certainty, rather than wonder and awe at science. They are trying to persuade, not explore. (if you know of any that are not like that, please let me know)

In the real world, people notice the weather, but they also notice climate changes over time. By filtering everything through a belief in something (this goes both ways), almost anything seems to convince them they are correct. That is exactly what science is supposed to prevent. When data becomes something to be manipulated, to fit a preconceived idea, it's not science.

Like this winter trend, which is an obvious thing. The warming mind only sees winters warming, the actual data doesn't matter. But to Cohen et al, it does matter. Of course they also filter it and try to say it must be the warming that is causing the cooling, at which point your ordinary mortal is going to be skeptical.

The thing is, to me, that it very well may be possible, that a warming from an enhanced greenhouse effect might turn out to cause an increase in snow and ice, which is certainly not in the consensus theory of CO2 warming. That thought did appear in early theories, it was all the rage back when global temperatures were dropping like a stone.

When temps went up, it was dismissed. Now when winters are trending colder again, the idea is once more being discussed, researched and looked into. Which is actually scientific. You don't advance by pretending something isn't happening.

 

[Mikemcc]

Evasion noted r-j.

 

[r-j]

It's really easy to find the theory mentioned, explained and even claims of it being confirmed. While the name may change, and some may evade calling it a theory, it's pretty obvious what is being discussed.
From 1956

Theories of climatic change are exceedingly numerous.... Although the carbon dioxide theory of climatic change was one of the most widely held fifty years ago, in recent years it has had relatively few adherents. However, recent research work suggests that the usual reasons for rejecting this theory are not valid. Thus it seems appropriate to reconsider the question of variations in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and whether it can satisfactorily account for many of the world-wide climatic changes.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2010/1/carbon-dioxide-and-the-climate/1

Here is the global warming theory in a nutshell. (I had to laugh when I was told it can't be found, because I read this years ago)

The carbon dioxide theory states that, as the amount of carbon dioxide increases, the atmosphere becomes opaque over a larger frequency interval; the outgoing radiation is trapped more effectively near the Earth’s surface and the temperature rises. The latest calculations show that if the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere should double, the surface temperature would rise 3.6 degrees Celsius and if the amount should be cut in half, the surface temperature would fall 3.8 degrees.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2010/1/carbon-dioxide-and-the-climate/2

The carbon dioxide theory was first proposed in 1861 by Tyndall

This new claim that models contain no theory is as absurd as the claim there is no theory.

Only recently has a reasonably accurate solution to the problem of the influence of carbon dioxide on surface temperature been possible, because of accurate infrared measurements, theoretical developments, and the availability of a high-speed electronic computer.

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2010/1/carbon-dioxide-and-the-climate/2

Herr we see the theory with a different name.

Before discussing in detail the carbon dioxide theory of climatic change...

http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2010/1/carbon-dioxide-and-the-climate/3

But it's obvious it's the same thing.

Thus there does not seem to be a fundamental objection to the carbon dioxide theory of climate change. Further the temperature changes given by the theory for reasonable variations in the carbon dioxide amount are more than enough to cause noticeable changes in the climate.

While it started off trying to explain past changes, obviously it is now the consensus theory for current and future changes.

Here's the original article
http://afil.tamu.edu/Readings%202012/CO2%20and%20Climate.pdf

The carbon dioxide theory provides a simple, straight-forward explanation for the increased precipitation during a glacial epoch.

Of course some may still object (some always do), but the clear statement that "On the other hand the carbon dioxide theory is the only one that predicts a continually rising average temperature for the remainder of this century because of the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of industrial activity.", should put that to rest.

One can hope, can't they?

 

[r-j]

Climate models don’t use any “Theory” they are a set of Navier–Stokes equations that describe the movement of energy though the atmosphere from the time it enters the atmosphere to the time it exists the atmosphere.

This blatant ignorance is surprising. Even more so that nobody else has taken you to task for spreading it.

I choose to learn from actual scientists who publish and educate about climate, and models, and theory.

The entire article is worth reading, it speaks to one of the core disputes and misunderstandings that comes up in the climate wars.

http://www.climateknowledge.org/fig...imate_Data_Laden_Politics_SciCulture_1999.pdf

But we all know this hard won fight to be correc tat all costs , the ignorant claim that that no climate model contains any theory, will continue, evidence will not sway the mind that already has decided what is true.

 

[greybeard]

Evasion noted r-j.

Yup. You asked him direct questions, and in return he repeats the same waffle we have heard over and over.

Both sides in the climate wars.........

I don't see a climate war. I see climate scientists using the same principles as scientists involved in any other field. They are using available knowledge and data to make sense out of a complex system. OTOH you have people who don't like their findings who use money, influence and lies to discredit them. Then there are those who are just misguided like the ones who think that the vast majority of climate scientists and every scientific institution in the world are involved in a conspiracy.
I'm not sure which group you come into r-j but the fact that you are belligerent to anyone who supports the scientific concensus and have previously accused scientists of manipulating data suggests you are stuck right inside the science denial camp. You can wage war on science if you like but it's a phoney war that one "side" has no interest in taking part in.
Of course at the end of the day those with money and influence win because while they can use their media to suggest that there is significant doubt then nothing will be done until it's too late.

 

[macdoc]

Back to some AGW science rather than r-j's nonsense. There no "sides" r-j- there is only evidence.

Global warming is man-made with 99.9% certainty, study says
McGill physicist Shaun Lovejoy can't show it's man's hand behind the mayhem, but if it isn't Mother Nature, who's left?

http://www.haaretz.com/life/nature-environment/1.585403

move on...

••••

25 year experiment shows ants can break down minerals, sequester CO2
And that reaction pulls carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2014...rstechnica/index+(Ars+Technica+-+All+content)

Be kind to your ants....

 

[r-j]

I don't see a climate war.

None are so blind as those that refuse to see. The war mentality is that there are two sides, and they are in conflict.

I'm not sure which group you come into r-j

I think you do indeed see it as a conflict, you just consider your side right, and everybody else wrong.

I've stated before that I think reducing fossil use is very important, that solar and wind and renewable energy is the future, that even with out climate change coal is a dangerous thing to burn, that big powerful interest are intent on preventing anything from stopping them, and that personally I use mostly use solar and nuclear power, and plant trees to offset my fossil fuel needs.

And that I wish everybody in the world would do this. I think we are damaging in ways we don't even know yet, and that certainly we can and are changing the weather as well as climate.

It's the woo woo claims I object to, as well as the snide and condescending attitude of ignorant people who think they already know it all.

As for changes to the presented temperature data, it's no secret, they even have an app to show the before and after changes, which almost always make the recent data warmer, and old data colder. In the total, it's all warmer. Changes to the actual records make it seem like there has been far more warming than any actual record shows.

 

[greybeard]

None are so blind as those that refuse to see. The war mentality is that there are two sides, and they are in conflict.

I think you do indeed see it as a conflict, you just consider your side right, and everybody else wrong.

I've stated before that I think reducing fossil use is very important, that solar and wind and renewable energy is the future, that even with out climate change coal is a dangerous thing to burn, that big powerful interest are intent on preventing anything from stopping them, and that personally I use mostly use solar and nuclear power, and plant trees to offset my fossil fuel needs.

And that I wish everybody in the world would do this. I think we are damaging in ways we don't even know yet, and that certainly we can and are changing the weather as well as climate.

It's the woo woo claims I object to, as well as the snide and condescending attitude of ignorant people who think they already know it all.

As for changes to the presented temperature data, it's no secret, they even have an app to show the before and after changes, which almost always make the recent data warmer, and old data colder. In the total, it's all warmer. Changes to the actual records make it seem like there has been far more warming than any actual record shows.

I think that those representing the scientific consensus have presented enough evidence that our continual high emissions of CO2 will cause us severe problems in the not too distant future. Probably within my Grandchildren's lifetime. If you consider presenting that case to be participating in a war rather than science then so be it. The fact that you consider it to be a war and you yourself are always belligerent to those who support the scientific concensus but not those who deny the science speaks volumes.
On top of that you now continue the "data is being manipulated" theme. It's a shame that you didn't follow your last posts on this to the conspiracy forum and argue your case there. If you are claiming the scientific community is involved in deception then this forum isn't the right place for that discussion except to say that somebody who believes that is no better than someone who believes in chemtrails or any other conspiracy theory.

 

[r-j]

If you are claiming the scientific community is involved in deception

Fallacy. You make something up, then proceed to base your argument on your made up thing.

What I showed you is based on fact. NCDC/NOAA says they changed the past, and their data shows it all creates more warming.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/divisional-comparison/

It's no secret.

What's unfathomable is the blind agreement and complete lack of skepticism from the global warming alarmists. Nothing that creates more warming is ever looked at like a skeptic.

 

[r-j]

This “Theory of Global Warming” is something you invented, that is why no one else will tell you what it is. Global Warming/Climate Change is a prediction of radioactive transfer theory which is an application of Quantum Mechanics, Conservation of Energy and several other scientific theories.

If you want to convince anyone of that, (and I mean a scientific skeptical person), you are going to need evidence. So far, you have provided zero evidence to support your view.

 

[greybeard]

Fallacy. You make something up, then proceed to base your argument on your made up thing.

What I showed you is based on fact. NCDC/NOAA says they changed the past, and their data shows it all creates more warming.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/divisional-comparison/

It's no secret.

What's unfathomable is the blind agreement and complete lack of skepticism from the global warming alarmists. Nothing that creates more warming is ever looked at like a skeptic.

This is what you said r-j

Then there is the skeptical look at the data itself. Any records that show no warming, or even worse, cooling, are "adjusted" to be in line with the story that it's all warming, all the time.

and

It's why so many people are skeptical. The raw data actually shows cooling for most of the world. Only after it's changed does it show drastic warming. But recently even the adjusted data shows cooling, not warming.

You didn't follow your post to the other thread to justify this remark but to me it quite clearly suggests a deception. I repeat that your claims here are not relevant to a science forum and they were quite properly moved but it is relevant to your claim in this thread that somehow science is participating in a war.

 

[macdoc]

. The raw data actually shows cooling for most of the world. Only after it's changed does it show drastic warming. But recently even the adjusted data shows cooling, not warming.

a total crock....you cannot support this claim as you've never been able to support you other bits of conspiracy records.
This all simply points to your abysmal lack of understanding of how statistics in climate work. Tiresome wilful ignorance of how science and math works.

Learn something

ew daily temperature dataset from Berkeley
Filed under: Climate Science Instrumental Record — group @ 5 March 2014

280

EmailShare
Guest commentary from Zeke Hausfather and Robert Rohde

Daily temperature data is an important tool to help measure changes in extremes like heat waves and cold spells. To date, only raw quality controlled (but not homogenized) daily temperature data has been available through GHCN-Daily and similar sources. Using this data is problematic when looking at long-term trends, as localized biases like station moves, time of observation changes, and instrument changes can introduce significant biases.

For example, if you were studying the history of extreme heat in Chicago, you would find a slew of days in the late 1930s and early 1940s where the station currently at the Chicago O’Hare airport reported daily max temperatures above 45 degrees C (113 F). It turns out that, prior to the airport’s construction, the station now associated with the airport was on the top of a black roofed building closer to the city. This is a common occurrence for stations in the U.S., where many stations were moved from city cores to newly constructed airports or wastewater treatment plants in the 1940s. Using the raw data without correcting for these sorts of bias would not be particularly helpful in understanding changes in extremes.

- See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...e-dataset-from-berkeley/#sthash.vdvks41p.dpuf

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/new-daily-temperature-dataset-from-berkeley/

and stop with the conspiracy *****.