Global warming discussion III

[ideogram]

Just when it seems it can't get any more wrong.

Of course you have evidence for this claim. And you will present it.

Right?

That's what raw data means. It doesn't go in the official records.

You don't know what the words mean.

 

[r-j]

Sometimes they are. No different than any other human being on the planet, including you and me both.

However, that brings up an important point. Just because people can be wrong from time to time, some more often than others, doesn't mean the consensus on AGW is wrong.

The really big terrestrial carbon sinks are the wetlands. Bogs swamps and such are where peat forms, which turns to coal. All that buried carbon that mankind keeps burning, it came from wetlands.

And those wet areas are still capturing a lot of carbon, year after year.

 

[ideogram]

Now r-j is going to pretend the whole argument never happened.

 

[ideogram]

This is not something you will find on Google.

That's why you didn't know it.

 

[ideogram]

No, I am not claiming what you say.

The CBS link is clearly not raw data.

Please identify which of your sources list raw data and which list adjusted data. It's your evidence, you justify it.

 

[ideogram]

http://climatecenter.fsu.edu/does-noaa-adjust-historical-climate-data

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The really big terrestrial carbon sinks are the wetlands. Bogs swamps and such are where peat forms, which turns to coal. All that buried carbon that mankind keeps burning, it came from wetlands.

And those wet areas are still capturing a lot of carbon, year after year.

Not enough, hence the current nearly 400 ppm atmospheric carbon levels.

 

[r-j]

Not enough, hence the current nearly 400 ppm atmospheric carbon levels.

Indeed, but 55% of the carbon is going somewhere.

 

[ideogram]

r-j can't imagine there would be two sets of records, one for the raw data and one for the "official" adjusted data.

That's how science works.

 

[macdoc]

Crazy weather traced to Arctic's impact on jet stream

19:00 26 September 2014 by Andy Coghlan
For similar stories, visit the Climate Change Topic Guide

The rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice caused by climate change may be to blame for more frequent prolonged spells of extreme weather in Europe, Asia and North America, such as heat waves, freezing temperatures or storms.

These are relatively short-term periods of bizarre weather, like the cold snap that paralysed North America earlier this year, rather than longer-term rises in temperature.

They are related to "stuck" weather patterns, Jennifer Francis of Rutgers University in New Brunswick, New Jersey, told a conference on Arctic sea ice reduction in London on 23 September. "Is it global warming? I think it's safe to answer yes," she told the meeting.

Francis said a growing number of studies, including her own, suggest that the melting Arctic is having knock-on effects on the jet stream, the river of air that snakes around the northern hemisphere at an altitude of around 5 to 6 kilometres, and which has a profound impact on the world's weather.

The jet stream is driven by the flow of air between the cold Arctic pole and warmer air that moves upwards from nearer the equator. As the warmer air advances polewards, it is swung eastwards by the Coriolis force which comes from Earth's spin, creating a snake-like stream. "It's a fast-moving river of air, a very messy creature," says Francis.

The strength of the jet stream depends on the temperature gradient between the regions of cold and warm air – the wider the difference, the faster and stronger the jet stream.

more
http://www.newscientist.com/article...rctics-impact-on-jet-stream.html#.VCYILL51aGM

 

[Belz...]

Now is a good time to answer my question, r-j. Why, in your opinion, does a layman like you finds the conclusion from the data painfully and insultingly obvious, but the vast majority of experts on the topic disagree. What is more likely, according to you ?

1) Climate scientists are stupid
2) Climate scientists are just honestly wrong
3) Climate scientists are paid or otherwise corrupted to lie about global warming.
4) The layman is wrong

Feel free to add possibilities, but please pick one.

Or perhaps you would rather admit that you are unwilling to commit to an answer ?

 

[greybeard]

R-j you need to contact the scientists involved and ask for a reply then get back to us. You should have done that before making accusations that they were making stuff up.

On the realclimate page it gives a contact email and says We are grateful for substantive feedback on our work.The named scientists even have their email addresses online where anyone can find them easily. We have been through this when you claimed there was no way you could find to contact them. Do the decent thing.

 

[a_unique_person]

More explanations about the "pause" and "Cherry Picking".

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2014/09/23/4092966.htm

I'm back, with the controversial topic of the so-called 'pause' in global warming. Some parts of the news media incorrectly claim that the climate is no longer warming, but is actually cooling. They get to this conclusion by everything from cherry-picking the data, all the way up to telling big fat fibs.
By way of complete contrast, early in 2014, the two most august scientific institutions in the United Kingdom and the USA issued a joint report entitled Climate Change: Evidence And Causes.
These two bodies, the Royal Society and the US National Academy of Sciences, warned that "climate change is more certain than ever."
Their accurate data shows that the climate, as measured by surface temperature of air and water, is still getting hotter.
But this average global temperature is not the only measure of climate change. There are other indicators that inform us about the state of the global climate.
They include the volume of the Arctic sea ice (which has been shrinking), snow in the Northern Hemisphere (also shrinking) and glaciers (more shrinking).
In the oceans we measure the sea level (which has been rising as an accelerating rate), the amount of heat stored in the ocean (which has been increasing), the sea surface temperature (the last decade is the warmest), and the air temperature over the ocean (also going up).
In the atmosphere, we measure specific humidity (which has been climbing along with the rising temperatures) and temperatures in the lower troposphere, which is the bottom 17 to 20 kilometres of the atmosphere (also rising).
Finally we have air temperature immediately over the land. It turns out that the first decade of the 21st century is the hottest decade since we began thermometer-based records in the 1850s, and yes, each of the last four decades has been hotter than the previous one. This astonishing trend of air temperature heating despite the fact that only a few per cent of all of the heat from global warming goes into heating the air — 93 per cent of the heat goes into the ocean.


................

 

[greybeard]

This conspiracy has parallels to the one alleged regarding the Rutherglen weather station in Australia. On virtually no evidence "sceptics" claimed that the weather station had never moved and instead data had been corrupted illicitly.

The conspiracy theory is that BoM is using a technique to selectively tamper with its temperature data so that it better fits with the global warming narrative.

When I quoted the BoM as saying they had twelve pieces of evidence showing the station had been in more than one place r-j quoted the bit that said there was no piece of paper to say outright that it had been moved. So what is it? The piece of paper had not made it through the last few decades (as even the one promoting this cs admitted was possible) or a conspiracy that had started in the 50s.

Have you contacted those scientists yet r-j? You said you couldn't now we have shown you that you can.

 

[ideogram]

r-j never imagined there could be two sets of data, raw and adjusted.

Back to pretending the argument never happened.

 

[ideogram]

It is, in fact, a trivial example. They could have used any example. r-j would have to prove every example wrong to discredit the point of the post.

 

[ideogram]

It can't be a common occurrence, since it didn't happen.

Fallacy. Even if you prove this example didn't happen (which you haven't) it could still be common.

Now you are accusing the scientists of lying when they say it is a common occurrence.

 

[ideogram]

You don't understand how science works.

Science involves talking to actual scientists.

 

[ideogram]

How do you suggest I get hold of them?

Within minutes of this post you were presented with three methods of contacting them.

 

[r-j]

113 F is the raw data. The official records have the adjusted data.

That is a complete fiction. Of course you will present evidence for your claim.

Of course.