|
Post by northsphinx on Feb 12, 2010 10:40:22 GMT
Nice picture because the earths area distribution is reflected in the bottom scale. If the poleward heat transfer is slowing down will the poles be colder and the low latitudes be warmer. With satellite measurements not covering the poles will that show as warmer earth. But it is not.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 12, 2010 12:58:24 GMT
So to sum up glc's points:
>>The proxy data for temperatures in the past cannot be trusted as the same metrics have failed validation (and the Penn State and UAE people were trying to hide this).
>>Temperatures have been rising (if considered in a linear way) for 40 years.
The Anthropogenic GW claims are that: 1. Temperatures are rising at an unprecedented rate 2. CO2 is rising to unprecedented levels
ergo
Temperatures are rising because of CO2
From glc's post we can see that there is no reason to believe claim 1 as the proxies being used are invalid. There is some doubt about claim 2 which is based on ice-cores and (also from proxies) in the past CO2 has been significantly higher with no apparent correlation with temperatures (also from proxies).
It looks like the Anthropogenic GW hypothesis needs some work as the claims that form the basis for it remain to be proven.
There is no doubt that since the LIA temperatures have risen, but it is not so clear that is due to use of fossil fuels.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 12, 2010 13:22:27 GMT
Temperatures are rising because of CO2
Temperatures may rise and fall for a lot of reasons but increases in CO2 are likely to result in an underlying warming trend which should on average be ~0.1 deg per decade.
From glc's post we can see that there is no reason to believe claim 1 as the proxies being used are invalid. There is some doubt about claim 2 which is based on ice-cores and (also from proxies) in the past CO2 has been significantly higher with no apparent correlation with temperatures (also from proxies).
I've been arguing against the Hockey-Stick for more than 5 years. However I've also expressed doubts about the solar link. I particularly don't like the position that many 'sceptics' take which is that the sun explains everything and now that activity has dropped we'll see significant cooling. They've backed themselves into a corner and I don't wish to join them.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 12, 2010 15:11:27 GMT
Temperatures are rising because of CO2Temperatures may rise and fall for a lot of reasons but increases in CO2 are likely to result in an underlying warming trend which should on average be ~0.1 deg per decade. From glc's post we can see that there is no reason to believe claim 1 as the proxies being used are invalid. There is some doubt about claim 2 which is based on ice-cores and (also from proxies) in the past CO2 has been significantly higher with no apparent correlation with temperatures (also from proxies). I've been arguing against the Hockey-Stick for more than 5 years. However I've also expressed doubts about the solar link. I particularly don't like the position that many 'sceptics' take which is that the sun explains everything and now that activity has dropped we'll see significant cooling. They've backed themselves into a corner and I don't wish to join them. I think we will find that there is no 'one thing' that explains everything. There may be a multiplicity of inter-reacting and unrelated and inter-related forces we know many of them but not others and we know some of their interrelationships and not others and we know some of their combined effects and not others. Then these knowns, unknowns and unknown-unknowns are all acting within a chaotic system of systems. Against this relying on a simple correlation between rate of change of CO 2 and atmospheric temperature that exists for a brief period, is shaky scientific ground. Especially when there is no proof that either the temperatures their rate of change; or CO 2 and its levels and rates of change are in any way exceptional or have shown any correlation in the paleo record. Indeed temperatures and CO 2 and their changes seem to be completely unexceptional at this stage in the Holocene, if anything both are below the Holocene average. There is no doubt that temperatures have risen but attribution of this rise to a single cause seems to be a leap of faith.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Feb 12, 2010 16:11:10 GMT
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 12, 2010 16:50:29 GMT
I've been arguing against the Hockey-Stick for more than 5 years. However I've also expressed doubts about the solar link. I particularly don't like the position that many 'sceptics' take which is that the sun explains everything and now that activity has dropped we'll see significant cooling. They've backed themselves into a corner and I don't wish to join them. That is an impressive Red Herring there GLC!! Skeptics aren't trying to regulate and tax economies to enforce their point of view. In my view there is a serious discrepancy between belief in a degree/century warming from CO2 or more and non-belief in the hockeystick. Your argument for CO2 warming has been based upon the late temperature increases in the UK taking the LIA directly to task. Now claiming you have been arguing against the hockey stick is completely contradictory. Thats why I keep asking you to plot your belief on a historical scale . . . .otherwise you will continue to play like a greased pig. If I am wrong then take the challenge!
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 12, 2010 19:51:30 GMT
I've been arguing against the Hockey-Stick for more than 5 years. However I've also expressed doubts about the solar link. I particularly don't like the position that many 'sceptics' take which is that the sun explains everything and now that activity has dropped we'll see significant cooling. They've backed themselves into a corner and I don't wish to join them. That is an impressive Red Herring there GLC!! Skeptics aren't trying to regulate and tax economies to enforce their point of view. In my view there is a serious discrepancy between belief in a degree/century warming from CO2 or more and non-belief in the hockeystick. Your argument for CO2 warming has been based upon the late temperature increases in the UK taking the LIA directly to task. Now claiming you have been arguing against the hockey stick is completely contradictory. Thats why I keep asking you to plot your belief on a historical scale . . . .otherwise you will continue to play like a greased pig. If I am wrong then take the challenge! I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying I haven't argued against the Hockey Stick? I don't see what is contradictory. Could you explain.
|
|
|
Post by AstroMet on Feb 12, 2010 21:57:20 GMT
This is just more proof of what is known by those who actually know something about astrophysics and geophysics. Also, the lies that have been told about anthropogenic global warming most likely have been done because the ideologues wanted more money in an ever-increasing flow to go right into their coffers. The whole "national security" ploy is just that - an excuse to then alter raw data and play games with Mother Nature. Thing is - Mother Nature never plays games. January 03 Another Scientist Silenced
The deft hand of the socialism hasn’t really left us, as the following note received via email shows.
Why Dr Ferenc Miskolczi and Dr Miklos Zagoni have been put under pressure to be silent about Miskolczi`s research concerning the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect.
In 2004 Dr Ferenc Miskolczi published a paper ’The Greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial radiation’, in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service (Vol. 108, No. 4, October–December 2004, pp. 209–251.).
The co-author of the article was his boss at NASA (Martin Mlynczak). Mlynczak put his name to the paper but did no work on it. He thought that it was an important paper, but only in a technical way.
When Miskolczi later informed the group at NASA there that he had more important results, they finally understood the whole story, and tried to withhold Miskolczi’s further material from publication.
His boss for example, sat at Ferenc’s computer, logged in with Ferenc`s password, and canceled a recently submitted paper from a high-reputation journal as if Ferenc had withdrawn it himself.
That was the reason that Ferenc finally resigned from his ($US 90.000 /year) job.
I want to make it clear: NASA never falsified or even tried to falsify Ferenc`s results, on the contrary, they fully understand it. They know that it is correct and see how important it is. To make sense of their actions, they probably see a national security issue in it. Perhaps they think that AGW is the only way to stop, or to slow, the coal-based growth of China.
In my circumstance where I have been dismissed from my Government paid position in Hungary, I think the information vacuum (in Hungary), has the same type of origin.
I believe someone is in the background trying to convince the establishment (media, science, politics) that Miskolczi's results are against our national security interests.
First, they tried to frighten me, and then when that did not work, they kicked me out from my job. So now I am turning to the wider internet to publicize Miskolczi`s work, as I know that his results are valid and true. There is no way and no need to hold them back for the world to understand them.
Tomorrow, for the first time in my life, I am jobless. Budapest, 31 Dec, 2009
Dr Miklos Zagoni (57) physicist Hungary miskolczi.webs.com
What the above proves is that you cannot trust the current careerists and bozos that have been engaged in such stupid behavior has trying to force what is impossible - AGW - down the throat of the world, and Mother Nature. But that is exactly what these AGW bozos at places like NASA and NOAA, and the CRU have been doing all these years. Just think of the wasted billions of dollars and euros that have gone into pushing this lie onto the world. Well, that is coming to an end, and with it, there will be ramifications - especially those in the so-called "background" who couldn't forecast the weather and climate if their own lives depended on it.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 13, 2010 0:02:55 GMT
That is an impressive Red Herring there GLC!! Skeptics aren't trying to regulate and tax economies to enforce their point of view. In my view there is a serious discrepancy between belief in a degree/century warming from CO2 or more and non-belief in the hockeystick. Your argument for CO2 warming has been based upon the late temperature increases in the UK taking the LIA directly to task. Now claiming you have been arguing against the hockey stick is completely contradictory. Thats why I keep asking you to plot your belief on a historical scale . . . .otherwise you will continue to play like a greased pig. If I am wrong then take the challenge! I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying I haven't argued against the Hockey Stick? I don't see what is contradictory. Could you explain. He's saying that you are trying to have it both ways, riding the fence so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Feb 13, 2010 3:34:50 GMT
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying I haven't argued against the Hockey Stick? I don't see what is contradictory. Could you explain. He's saying that you are trying to have it both ways, riding the fence so to speak. Exactly! GLC has argued against the LIA by saying UK temp records do not show 19th century warming. I disagree but he does have a couple of temp records in the UK to argue that point. (probably kept by a Jones penpal but I won't get into that) Thats an argument "FOR" the hockey stick. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck its a duck! So here he regales us with: "I've been arguing against the Hockey-Stick for more than 5 years" I am calling BS! Further the hockey stick is the third leg of the untested AGW stool. Kick it away and the stool falls over. Scientists like Briffa, Mann and others would not have dummied up science and risked their reputations to support the hockey stiick if were extraneous to the AGW argument. Ultimately using all credible data we have had rather straightline warming of less than .7degree C per century. Ocean oscillations are what drove it to 1.3C plus. Jones and Hansen mucking with temperature records tried to portray that as accelerating effects from CO2. The problem is people easily get tunnel vision on this issue and look at say the satellite record only and note the 1.3C/century slope and forget the implications of what is being discredited. The game was first to discredit historical temp records. That was neat in the middle of pumping parameters for everything else in the modern world and in the midst of the 1.3C warming. But then something happened. Probably an ocean oscillation flip. Much of the hoopla was built on what appears to be a short term oscillation. . . .of course leaving a door open to pooh poohing still the longterm historical data with the hockey stick. Just about every scientist on both sides bought into the natural short term oscillation theory. They should because it really is well documented in science literature and the temperature record. But ocean oscillations only related to the lengths of the three legs on the stool, lowering expectations quite a bit. Pull out the hockey stick too and whoops!!! I think its fair to dispute the hockey stick and I am only calling GLC on it because he is being duplicitous on the topic. But ultimately where we sit as I see it the LIA and the MWP were real or at least the "best" science says they were. . . .and if you doubt that you still have to deal with the north Greenland shore formation science that says the Arctic 6,000 years ago was free of ice perhaps for a thousand years. Might not be the MWP but it is an unexplained oscillation of a different sort than we have seen recently. And almost as an honorarium to the state of current science the reviewers/funders of the Greenland beach study got the author to write a statement in the study saying that the causes of the 6,000 year old ice free arctic was caused by something else than the cause of our current warming (CO2). . . .and she said that without doing one stitch of work on the cause of either. Michael Crichton in State of Fear had a fun chapter devoted to that kind of mentality.
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Feb 13, 2010 4:01:47 GMT
I think its fair to dispute the hockey stick and I am only calling GLC on it because he is being duplicitous on the topic. But ultimately where we sit as I see it the LIA and the MWP were real or at least the "best" science says they were. . . . We mustn't forget about the Roman Warm period either. There have been several and all were good for civilization.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 13, 2010 10:00:33 GMT
Exactly!
GLC has argued against the LIA by saying UK temp records do not show 19th century warming. I disagree but he does have a couple of temp records in the UK to argue that point. (probably kept by a Jones penpal but I won't get into that)
Whereas you don't have any records.
So here he regales us with: "I've been arguing against the Hockey-Stick for more than 5 years"
I am calling BS!
Ok - what proof would you like. Fortunately for me my arguments are well recorded. However I prefer to remain anonymous on this blog so to make it worth my while - how about a bet? How about putting your money where your mouth is? On the other hand you could ask Magellan. He might be able to help you.
The main problem with the H-S, by the way, is the lack of variability in the pre-measurement period. That's the clue that there is a problem with it. Start by assuming the H-S is right - eventually logic tells you it must be wrong.
|
|
|
Post by spaceman on Feb 13, 2010 16:21:49 GMT
glc, proof? So, what caused the artic to be ice free? If you can't answer that, AGW doesn't have a leg to stand on. There is a lot more evidence other than recording co2 levels. The geological and biology societies have records that affirm LIA, the MWP, and eras of warming and cooling going back in time and progression of warmth and cold. For example, warmer at a lower latitude first, then warming at a higher latitude, and then reversing.
The corner that you have painted yourself into is that AGW is the major component of GW. Therefore, dire predictions IF we don't stop the production of CO2. The rest of the arguments are pointless. This issue has clouded research with assertions and doctored data. It will take time to sort thru this mess. Proving this, refuteing that. Some of the research is straight up, no doubt. But it is mixed with tainted research and it will have to be untangled.
Please note glc that no one else was predicting global choas except AGW, and is predicting choas with near certainty.
While I may believe that solar activity causes changes in earth weather, I am open to other factors. Also, while I think we may stand at the verge of a Dalton like minima, I am not so certain This solar cycle or the next??? We are at the end of a 208 years cycle. Will it be mild or severe? Is that what's causing weather change? It correlates, but as you would say no proof. So it does bear watching and analysis.
I haven't been convinced that AGW is the monster in the closet. For one thing, from the papers I've read, (not the emails or such) they seem to show a lack of understanding of weather systems. And sometimes single words in the body of the text alter the entire process. I have been harping on one word... returned. There are others.
And, in the IBD (investors business daily) "Since then, the nation has slid into a recession, and the only thing man-made about climate change has been the manipulated and manfactured claims that we are doomed if we don't act to fight it."
Arizona is suspending its participation in in the emission control plan or any program ... the others that were part of this western states compact will probably follow along with some Canaidian provinces.
|
|
|
Post by glc on Feb 13, 2010 20:29:35 GMT
glc, proof? So, what caused the artic to be ice free? If you can't answer that, AGW doesn't have a leg to stand on. There is a lot more evidence other than recording co2 levels. The geological and biology societies have records that affirm LIA, the MWP, and eras of warming and cooling going back in time and progression of warmth and cold. For example, warmer at a lower latitude first, then warming at a higher latitude, and then reversing.
Can we be clear exactly what you mean by AGW. There are sceptical scientists, e.g. Lindzen, Barrett, Paltridge & Spencer, who accept that increasing the concentration of CO2 will raise the temperature of the atmosphere and surface. If CO2 is doubled from pre-iddustrial levels the increase in temperature is reckoned to be about 1 deg C. This would not be catastrophic. The problem is we don't know if there are likely to be any feedback effects (positive or negative). AGW "alarmists" think there will be and that they will be positive - hence the 3 deg C prediction.
What proof are you looking for:
Is it that CO2 interacts with LW IR radiation? Ans: It does Is it that the earth emits LW IR radiation? Ans: It does Is it that CO2 in the atmosphere interacts with the radiation that is emitted from the earth's surface? Ans: It does as we can clearly see from emission spectra.
What is it that you think is not proven?
|
|
|
Post by magellan on Feb 13, 2010 22:25:30 GMT
All those GHG are warming the oceans, especially the Arctic, haven't you heard? Magellan I asked if the arctic was warming at the same rate as the rest of the world. You failed to answer. Let me help you. Here's the UAH satellite record. vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt Note the last 2 NoPol (North Pole) anomalies. They are as follows: Dec +1.95 Jan +1.61 Now look at the bottom line, i.e. the trends. The UAH global trend is 0.13 deg per decade ; the North pole trend is 0.44 deg per decade. So when I asked you if the arctic was warming at the same rate as the rst of the world your answer should have been something like: "No it's not. The arctic is warming at more than 3 times the rate of the rest of the world. " It's quite easy really. It's also reasonable therefore for GISS to try and account for the arctic warming. Hadley do not which means they are missing the fastest warming region on the earth. This will probably create a small divergence when the arctic is particularly warm. However this has very little effect on the long term trend (easily provable- see below) and there is a flip side. If the arctic cools, as all the solar supporters think it will, the arctic will cool at a faster rate than the ROW, and GISS data will converge towards the Hadley data. How much difference will this make? The trends between 1975-2000 (i.e. before 2000) GISS +0.17 deg per decade Had +0.17 deg per decade The trends between 1975-2009 (i.e including the 'divergence' ) GISS +0.17 deg per decade Had +0.17 deg per decade The 'divergence' affects the long term trends by a couple of thousandths of a degree per decade Magellan, you take too much notice of amateurs who have no comprehension of the statisitics involved and are happy the cherry pick short term trends to make a point. Now look at the bottom line, i.e. the trends. The UAH global trend is 0.13 deg per decade ; the North pole trend is 0.44 deg per decade. So when I asked you if the arctic was warming at the same rate as the rst of the world your answer should have been something like:
"No it's not. The arctic is warming at more than 3 times the rate of the rest of the world. What's the substance of your drivel? Nothing as usual.... Arctic air temperature change amplification and the Atlantic Multidecadal OscillationUnderstanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale.
What do you supposed actually does warm the Arctic? -------------------------------------------------------------------- The trends between 1975-2000 (i.e. before 2000)GISS +0.17 deg per decade Had +0.17 deg per decade
The trends between 1975-2009 (i.e including the 'divergence' )
GISS +0.17 deg per decade Had +0.17 deg per decade
The 'divergence' affects the long term trends by a couple of thousandths of a degree per decade
Well, then it can only improve with time right? Why not 1900-2009? See what that gets. Any reason why you picked 1975 as the starting year? Gee, it couldn't be because you "cherry picked" would it? There's a lot of noise in there glc. Why is that? No, I won't reply on this so don't bother. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Magellan, you take too much notice of amateurs who have no comprehension of the statisitics involved and are happy the cherry pick short term trends to make a point.
What does that make you then? The only skill you've demonstrated is the the ability to draw straight lines, always cherry picked of course. What is the definition of short term? Do we need 30 years of data to determine if a trend is broken? What makes you think 10 years is not long enough? Hansen used 10 years of OHC as the "smoking gun" for AGW. Was it long enough? An amateur with no comprehension of statistics recently published an analysis of the issue of trend breaks. Of course in your infinite knowledge of statistics, it shouldn't be difficult to refute it with unmatched mathematical precision. TREND ANALYSIS OF SATELLITE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE DATAGlobal satellite data is analyzed for temperature trends for the period January 1979 through June 2009. Beginning and ending segments show a cooling trend, while the middle segment evinces a warming trend. The past 12 to 13 years show cooling using both satellite data sets, with lower confidence limits that do not exclude a negative trend until 16 years. There you go glc. Have at it. Since Hansen "discovered" Arctic warming that isn't measured (it's made up), GISS has been diverging from both HadCRUT and satellite. It is what it is. You've been insisting all are in "good agreement", and since the past decade is the warmest decade on record (is that short term?), isn't important they are?
|
|