|
Post by woodstove on Dec 19, 2008 3:56:23 GMT
So you all accept the surface warming in GISS in the last 30 years then? I'll take it as a silent yes unless someone can suggest what the actual GISS trend in that graph should look like (half as much warming? a quarter?) You are out walking climbing a steep hill - you reach the top and start to walk downhill on the other side. A statistician then says look we are several hundred feet higher than when we started - so we are still going uphill!! The difference in this analogy is that the downward slope ahead can be seen. In the CO2 causes global warming case - we are blindfold and can only say that the recent few steps are downward and no longer upward. The AGW argument in the late 90s and up to around 6 years ago was that warming due to CO2 was now more powerful than any natural climatological effect. All the IPCC AR4 models show a relatively linear rise in temperature with CO2 rise (yes some flatten and climb but none for more than a year) So us blindfolded walkers are starting to think that the map-reader has got it wrong - with every step we are still going downhill - and telling us that we are higher than we were when we started so we are really going uphill, is a nice statistical exercise - but it doesn't alter the fact that we are now going downhill after the crest 7 or 8 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Acolyte on Dec 19, 2008 4:51:57 GMT
And if we walk into the cliff that is the 'tipping point' of global warming, we get a bloody nose. If we walk into the tipping point that is global cooling we fall a long way to a usually fatal end.
In the times past when the global temps were higher than now, life teemed across the face of the planet. The very fuels now being blamed for global warming were laid down in times when the average temp was up to 10ยบ more than now! CO2 is plant food - in other words we are encouraging plants to grow.
More plant food means more things that eat plants can survive. More meat means we can survive this quite handily if the agw'ers are correct - provided we don't first destroy our society with silly taxes and punitive reactions against the very institutions that might help us survive.
On the other hand, going over the cooling cliff leaves few options. Billions WILL DIE! No if's but's or maybe's about it. The food prodcution capacity of the planet will fall by orders of magnitude. Entire nations can vanish under ice or be rendered uninhabitable.
So what is the mainstream reaction? Raise the prices of everything to the point (or beyond) of unsustainability right before the crisis hits.
The human race, as a race, is totally insane. There are a few relatively sane areas & even fewer sane individuals but as a whole we have a suicidal impulse that makes lemmings look like stay-at-home safety-niks.
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Dec 19, 2008 15:00:05 GMT
No I don't except Hanson's numbers. If for no other reason than that since 1999, 1998 has slowly over taken 1934 as the warmest year of the last 100 years. Massaging data to fit the theory is his forte not scientific investigation.
Personally I don't think we will ever be able to tell whether 34 or 98 was the warmer. We will never be able to reduce the margin of error enough. Honest scientific papers would acknowledge that, but then Hanson apparently isn't a fan of Richard Feynman.
|
|
|
Post by dopeydog on Dec 19, 2008 15:15:56 GMT
We have skeptics in the wire! businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20081218205953.aspxActually there are three that have voiced issues with agw. I think Reynolds Wolf said something skeptical in the morning a few days ago. If CNN is starting to have doubts, the deep rumblings must be getting louder.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Dec 19, 2008 18:13:27 GMT
No I don't except Hanson's numbers. If for no other reason than that since 1999, 1998 has slowly over taken 1934 as the warmest year of the last 100 years. 1998 has always been well over half a degree Celsius warmer than 1934 in both GISTEMP and HadCRUT3.
|
|
|
Post by socold on Dec 19, 2008 20:46:40 GMT
If we adjust the last 30 years of the GISS surface record for the "Hansen factor", the "urban heat island factor" and the "surface stations built on roofs factor", that leaves us with a GISS surface record with much less warming over the last 30 years than any of the other records. What's the explaination for that again?
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 19, 2008 21:01:42 GMT
Nice graph, sort of flat to going down on right. If WUWT and ClimateAudit had not kept up with Hansen and his merry men's adjustments and infilling GISS would have outstripped the other measurements. But even given that the estimates of global warming based on a period of time with a positive PDO and high solar activity when the alarm was sounded seems like bad science to me, just looking at the graph and few facts. Of course I am not paid like Hansen to make such profound statements.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Dec 20, 2008 0:42:00 GMT
If we adjust the last 30 years of the GISS surface record for the "Hansen factor", the "urban heat island factor" and the "surface stations built on roofs factor", that leaves us with a GISS surface record with much less warming over the last 30 years than any of the other records. What's the explaination for that again? Socold, What's the source for that chart?
|
|
|
Post by ron on Dec 20, 2008 0:52:16 GMT
Nice graph, sort of flat to going down on right. No, it doesn't. Not to my eyes anyway. It shows a 5 yearish pattern of 3ish years of warming followed by one to twoish years of cooling. The two cooling periods around 1997 and 2003 did not cool in the same pattern. Neither did the 2004-2007 period warm fit the pattern. So far 2008 appears to be entering the cooling pattern. Time will tell -- something, anyway.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 20, 2008 1:05:44 GMT
Ron I was trying to keep it simple. 2002 to 2007 kind of flat and 2008 looks like cooling. I would not be setting up my administration as if AGW was the primary enemy to be fought based on the last 6 years. Further if +- PDO and solar influence have any responsibility in this crisis then I would even be more careful. But not to worry as my thoughts have no import as to what the government will do. Further none on what other people may think or believe. I have given up on the idea of science being practiced in this arena and try to make semi-rational commentary now and then. I will note lots of snow and ice in the U.S. currently. Good skiing on the continent as well.
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 20, 2008 1:20:08 GMT
|
|
|
Post by trbixler on Dec 20, 2008 1:39:22 GMT
More nice graphs. For some reason this on says 2008 is the fifth coolest out of the satellite era (30 years or so). www.climateaudit.org/?p=4687 ;D
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 20, 2008 3:44:03 GMT
No I don't except Hanson's numbers. If for no other reason than that since 1999, 1998 has slowly over taken 1934 as the warmest year of the last 100 years. 1998 has always been well over half a degree Celsius warmer than 1934 in both GISTEMP and HadCRUT3. If you are referring to U.S. temperatures records, that is 100% wrong concerning GIStemp. Nonetheless, why does the past get cooler and the present get warmer? Having looked at these issues for quite some time and because my work background demands uncertainty accountability, the surface station network is a complete joke. Please find the justification for the following "adjustment" by GIStemp to the raw data.
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Dec 20, 2008 4:18:54 GMT
If we adjust the last 30 years of the GISS surface record for the "Hansen factor", the "urban heat island factor" and the "surface stations built on roofs factor", that leaves us with a GISS surface record with much less warming over the last 30 years than any of the other records. What's the explaination for that again? Where in the world do you guys get your information from? GIStemp has been diverging from the other data sets for the last two decades. This can be reproduced with Excel. 30 year trend from WFT. 1995-2008 2001-2008
|
|
|
Post by jimg on Dec 20, 2008 6:32:54 GMT
I'm still pretty amazed that we believe that we can accurately measure global temperature within .1 F
I tried researching this but to little avail.
What is the margin of error for these temperatures?
.5 F? 1 F?
The anomoly is well within the margin of error.
Because of the scale of those graphs, the trend looks enormous!
|
|