Global Cooling

[Ugly Dougly]

[dr.placebo]

Geekster, I looked at Tamino's web site (http://tamino.wordpress.com/) to find the source of the data you described. I did not find the graphs you included, but it appears that the RSS data (http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html) is for atmospheric temperatures, not ground or sea temperatures. The stratosphere data shows a cooling trend, but the lower atmosphere shows a warming trend. The split deserves more research, but is not inconsistent with ground data trends that show even faster warming at the surface.

I also found this quote from Tamino regarding the recent stolen data and emails:
[quote]Continuing to suggest that climate scientists generally, and Phil Jones specifically, are engaged in a conspiracy to deceive the world about global warming, when there turns out to be no real evidence of it in 10 years of personal communications (only words that can be twisted when taken out of context), demonstrates the idiocy of those who stand by that suggestion. If anything, the messages prove that there is not any conspiracy, and the scientists at CRU did not fudge data or engage in deceptive practices to push their “agenda.â€

[can't sit still]

This vid has some interesting info regarding an 800 year lag between CO2 and temp. They claim that the oceans are responsible for this;
http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=8514

[geekster]

Came across an blog today with some interesting information about GISSTemp:

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/09 ... uman-view/

It seems that since 1960 many of the surface temperature recording stations have been removed and are no longer used to calculate temperatures (though most of them are still there, still recording temperature data).

GISS uses the average of 1850 different stations to produce the temperatures of 1968. Today that number is down to 136. 136 thermometers record the temperature for the entire US for the GISS record.

In California there are only 4. All 4 of them are located on the coast in Southern California. GISS doesn't use a single temperature reading for Northern California or the central valley or the Sierra Nevadas.

This guy should know. He was the first person to get the GISSTemp code to actually run after Hansen released the source (under pressure of FOIA).

So how can anyone claim with a straight face and any certainty that the climate has done anything either warmer or cooler if we are comparing an average of many stations across the state to an average of few in one small part of it that happens to be the warmest part?

It''s just nuts.

[geekster]

the RSS data (http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html) is for atmospheric temperatures

Correct, it is for the "lower troposphere". That is the part that is claimed to be warming. So you can not have general "climatic" warming without warming the lower troposphere and the oceans.

The surface measurements are garbage because of jiggling of the data. They are constantly being "adjusted" to fit the agenda of the producer of the data. RSS and UAH are research facilities. They don't push an agenda. It is what it is and their data agree with each other even though they measure using different equipment on different platforms in different orbits with different processes to provide their results. Their data are closer in agreement than any of the surface networks (NCDC, GISSTemp, HadCRUT).

So when you see that the lower troposphere isn't warming, the sea surfaces aren't warming, and the sea at depth isn't warming, and the oceans aren't rising at an accelerated rate, it comes down to what one believes in a "faith based" sort of way. To show someone who "believes in" global warming that it isn't really warming is like trying to show Jerry Falwell that organisms evolve by showing him the data.

It just isn't happening. You are being fed a line of crap to get you to buy into a global social program. If you want to support the program of global redistribution of wealth for its own sake, that is fine and that is honest. Using a made up "crisis" is just nuts.

Today The Scotsman produces a piece of tripe that says 90% of us will die when temperatures rise 4C. It is crap. Earth was 4C higher than it is now about 20 million years ago. In fact, Earth for most of its history was at a global average temperature of around 22C which is about 10C higher than today. About 30 million years ago the global temperature started a rather dramatic drop (in the context of geological time). It is currently at near the record low in the planet's history. It has been this low only twice before and that was during what many suspect were great ice ages of millions of years duration. In fact, it is very unusual for our planet to have ice at the poles and Antarctica has been fairly tropical in the past. I believe it succumbed to glaciation only about 12 million years ago. CO2 and global temperatures are at near record lows for the planet.

2 degrees of cooling will kill a lot more people than 4 degrees of warming. When frost kills the US midwestern corn crop, a lot of people are going to starve to death.

[can't sit still]

We don't need no stinkin data,,,, we have faith

[dr.placebo]

So when you see that the lower troposphere isn't warming, the sea surfaces aren't warming, and the sea at depth isn't warming, and the oceans aren't rising at an accelerated rate, it comes down to what one believes in a "faith based" sort of way.

Not only does the RSS data show the lower troposphere to be warming (at 0.153 degree K per decade), it shows that the lower the altitude the faster the warming, based on the 4 bands that they report. In other words, it is consistent with a model that has the atmospheric warming driven by the ground warming in the presence of increased CO2.

The simplest explanation is that the greenhouse gases, which are mostly concentrated near the ground are in effect insulating the stratosphere from the warming from the ground. This is because they reradiate some of the infrared radiation from the surface back to the ground instead of allowing it to warm higher altitudes. There are a lot of complications to throw in, like the cooling from ozone depletion, but it is the scattering of IR that is the dominant effect.

The examination of the past 500 million years is not as foolproof as you might expect. Besides a greater uncertainty in the data, there are variations in solar radiation, the earth's inclination and orbit, and the positions of continents that also drive global temperatures. In the last 400k years, where all of those effects are either lessened or negligible, the tracking of global temperature and CO2 concentration is quite good. Further, over that period, we have not only an unprecedented level of CO2 today, we have also had a record for the rate of increase.

I found this to be a good primer on greenhouse gases and global warming.

[can't sit still]

From your primer;
Not all greenhouse gases are equally effective at absorbing energy. When one ranks these gases by how efficient they are at absorbing longwave radiation the order becomes: (IPCC, 2007)

1. water vapor: 36–70%
2. carbon dioxide: 9-26%

"Water vapor is naturally cycled into and out of the atmosphere on a relatively short time cycle so it is not considered to be a major component of long-term climate change."

BAD science. Just because water vapor is cycled, does that imply that it isn't ever-present? Does that mean that all the heat trapped by water vapor can just be forgotten?
Typical of junk science; "sins of omission"

[gyre]

There was a scientist from some commission on bbc news this morning.
I didn't catch his name.
He said that up to 2% warming may increase overall crop yields, while devastating some countries.
But he said abrupt runaway cycles could not be ruled out, so plans for emergency action must be made, such as sulfur injection.
I gather after 2% warming, they think we're in trouble.

[ygmir]

IIRC, that's what the USSR was after, when, they began their spraying coal dust over the Siberian arctic, to try to increase mean temps, so, the temperate zone would move north and they could grow their own food.........

hey, wait..........hhhhhhhhmmmmmmm, did it work?

I also seem to remember, that a 2% increase, was ok, but, over that, could start an ice age, owing to water vapor in the air reflecting solar energy, and, increased snowfall due to increased available atmospheric water.

Ice coverage only requires a few really heavy winters, then, just "normal" allows ice to build up...........
it's an interesting theory.

I also read, somewhere, a huge carbon sink that seems often overlooked is the high latitude mosses and lichens............they can lock up vast amounts of carbon, when temps get warm enough to allow longer "active" periods.

*disclaimer: I'm no scientist, and, hope I remember what I read, correctly*

[gyre]

The only cascade theory I'm familiar with involves ocean currents shifting abruptly.
Almost instant weather change.
But we all know how jet streams change.
Any type of persistent change there would be a problem.

[Ugly Dougly]

IIRC, that's what the USSR was after, when, they began their spraying coal dust over the Siberian arctic, to try to increase mean temps, so, the temperate zone would move north and they could grow their own food.........

hey, wait..........hhhhhhhhmmmmmmm, did it work?

Do you mean we can blame the Russians?

Happy dance:

[ygmir]

IIRC, that's what the USSR was after, when, they began their spraying coal dust over the Siberian arctic, to try to increase mean temps, so, the temperate zone would move north and they could grow their own food.........

hey, wait..........hhhhhhhhmmmmmmm, did it work?

Do you mean we can blame the Russians?

Happy dance:

hahaha, well, maybe.......that is the effect they were after, IIRC.
I mostly used the example to back up the above statement that it would be good for some, not so good for others, if the temp rose........

[dr.placebo]

"Water vapor is naturally cycled into and out of the atmosphere on a relatively short time cycle so it is not considered to be a major component of long-term climate change."

BAD science. Just because water vapor is cycled, does that imply that it isn't ever-present? Does that mean that all the heat trapped by water vapor can just be forgotten?

While I'm still trying to understand the mechanics of this better, I think that the statement about water vapor is not phrased well. It is trying to simplify a complicated relationship among various greenhouse gases. A better way to describe the effect of water vapor it tends to be an amplifier rather than a cause. It trails the warming rather than leads the warming. Of course, cause and effect are difficult to distinguish in a system with both positive and negative feedback loops.

A recent article concludes that the effect of water vapor is to roughly double the warming effect of the other greenhouse gases.

BTW, do we have any cites for the "2% increase" reference? Does this mean 2% of the temperature, which can only mean 2% of (about) 300 degrees K, which would be 6 degrees K? Even the IPCC gives the range as 2 to 4.5 degrees C (degrees C are the same as degrees K with an offset). This reference does not make sense to me.

[Ugly Dougly]

So do we have more water vapor than before?

[gyre]

I have no idea, unless he meant 2 degrees.
It was an interview actually on set, apparently live.

[Ugly Dougly]

Hello, Mary, we can't even predict the weather a week from now. So here's our little take-home, girls:
- Don't shit your own nest, even if you're a rat.
- Prepare for weird weather.

Now, where's that burn barrel?

[unjonharley]

Hello, Mary, we can't even predict the weather a week from now. So here's our little take-home, girls:
- Don't shit your own nest, even if you're a rat.
- Prepare for weird weather.

Now, where's that burn barrel?

Can we get an Amen here?

[can't sit still]

This is an entertaining article about Copenhagen;
http://smokingmirrors.wordpress.com/200 ... -twinkies/
The guy has some good mental images.
"The world has the appearance of a starving wino with a serious case of delirium tremens. The world looks like George W. Bush trying to ride a six foot unicycle"

[Token]

Interesting blip on a major entertainment network:

http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2009/ ... l-warming/

looks like sceptics of the global warming hysteria are getting vocal enough to get a small mention on the glam news network.

[dr.placebo]

If you want a summary of the majority scientific view, here's another recent reference that summarizes the observed climate trends:

http://www.copenhagendiagnosis.org/press.html

The 64-page report linked therein has over 5 pages of references, mostly to peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals.

My opinion is that to effectively deny global warming you have to deny the validity of the majority of the trends cited. One way (perhaps the only possible way) to do that is to claim a conspiracy among governments and thousands of climate scientists. The weakest point in the conspiracy theory is why so many scientists would deliberately fake data and publish false conclusions. In my field (not directly climate related) that is simply not credible.

Although I work for a large, publicly-held, company, they simply don't have enough money to make me swear to scientific data that is invalid, and they don't seem to have any inclination to ask me to do so. Nor have I ever been asked to hold back scientific data. Most likely I would be dismissed for cause if I did such a thing.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don't see the credible and consistent evidence for a conspiracy. This means that deniers will claim that I am blind, even willfully blind. I strongly disagree on that point as well.

Since I don't think it likely that I will convince climate change deniers, then why do I bother posting here? Simply because I don't want them to have an open goal shot. I will continue to cite evidence that I think is reasonably obtained, even when I cannot 100% vouch for it (I remain a professional skeptic). I hope to contribute to a data-centered discussion of climate change.

Remember that in science a "theory" is simply our best guess based on available data. In my non-expert but nonetheless educated judgement the large majority of the data cited supporting climate change is valid, and the large majority of climate scientists are honest and correct. It remains a possibility that I have been misled, but that's not the way that I'm placing my bets. A conspiracy to falsify vast amounts of data would be a serious intellectual and moral crime. A movement to deny vast amounts of validly obtained data is no less wrong.

[ygmir]

I also think, that, several differing subjects related here seem to get transposed and then argued about.........but, it seems apples and oranges, at times, to me:

some folks argue for or against:

global warming

human cause

scale of human effect

earthbound cause

extraterrestrial cause

I've seen one person say something to the effect:
I don't think humans are the main force behind global warming.

Another person will answer:
how can you deny there is global warming?.......

and,
off it goes.......

just sayin, it's good, at times, to make sure we listen to the "others" we are discussing something with, to make sure we're on the same page.

[can't sit still]

Dr. Placebo. Don't go away. There are no absolutes in this universe. Of that I'm absolutely sure. Somebody will be wrong and somebody will be right but, we'll all be enlightened.

[dr.placebo]

At least a few people deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or that it has a significant effect on warming. But we do have empirical evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas with significant effect:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empiric ... effect.htm

Some people think that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but that human activity is not a significant contribution. But we also have evidence that the CO2 is anthropogenic, especially from isotopic measurements of the C12/C13 ratio:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empiric ... arming.htm

http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_gas_l ... B_IJMS.pdf

Also, although we often focus on CO2, the contribution of other anthropogenic greenhouse gases are nearly as important.

http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/RamAmbio.pdf

So it is more appropriate to examine the total GHG contribution. But the human contribution remains quite significant.

Now, one might dispute these studies, or the reporting of them, but that's a separate dispute. If the data are substantially correct then human activity is the majority contribution to warming based on greenhouse gases and other effects. The estimated net anthropogenic effect is roughly 1.5 watts per square meter (IPCC, 2007) comparing 2005 against 1750 (a rough date for the start of the industrial age). We still need research to reduce the error bars, however, especially for the effect of aerosols in the atmosphere (especially on cloud formation).

[theCryptofishist]

apperences,

[theCryptofishist]

My opinion is that to effectively deny global warming you have to deny the validity of the majority of the trends cited. One way (perhaps the only possible way) to do that is to claim a conspiracy among governments and thousands of climate scientists. The weakest point in the conspiracy theory is why so many scientists would deliberately fake data and publish false conclusions. In my field (not directly climate related) that is simply not credible.

I'd just like to add that scientists are also motivated by a search for "truth" (and I'm not saying that there are the only ones) which would encourage anyone within the field who uncovered a conspiracy like this (and it would really be very hard to come up with a bunch of data that didn't look like it was made up and was also close enough to verifiable data that that gap wasn't glaringly obvious) not to go to public with his/her discovery. Scientists are also motivated by fame and money and that's going to go to the first and maybe the second who break silence (in the form of tv show appearances, book contracts, splashed across the newspapers/magazines, ticker tape parades and the like) than the 5th 7th or 39th. This means that there is a pressure from within the conspiracy to be that first person who breaks silence on this "conspiracy."

[can't sit still]

If the answer is so clear, why did the researchers feel the need to hide data?

[Elderberry]

Seven Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense

JK

[ygmir]

that is some interesting info, JK.

I note it says 95 percent of the co2 in the atmosphere is "naturally occurring".
so, "we" create 5 percent, if my math is correct.

so, if we cut our output by 20% (again, if my math holds), we are only reducing the total amount by 1%.

I'd say a 20% reduction is huge.
I'd wonder:

will a 1% reduction in CO2 matter?........

Again,
I'm not against protecting the environment, cleaning up what messes we can, etc........

I also note a reference to "aerosols"........and the statement that they may either shade or warm the planet.......wow, thanks for that laser pointer fact.........

I think there is hyperbole on both sides.
I just note, some folks tend to think their opinion is the "majority" opinion.........

I also wonder:
are there accurate predictions to what would happen with a 2% (or whatever figure you want) increase in global temps?
Or, is it all speculation as to what might, or could, happen?

I see the prognosticators stating opinion or theory as to effects, as though they are fact.

I also see "naysayers" denying anything will happen.

one might expect accuracy to land somewhere in the middle........

[dr.placebo]

If the answer is so clear, why did the researchers feel the need to hide data?

I'm not so sure that the researchers need to "hide" data. They are reluctant to publish uncorrected data, to be sure, but that's because the raw numbers are easy to misinterpret. I've said before that I prefer that the raw data be made available, but that's my bias.

I'll give a simple example from a less controversial field. When I measure the performance of a computer program I take many runs and look for glitches in the data, not because I want to lie about the performance, but because the raw numbers may reveal some unusual events on the computer unrelated to the program being measured, but perturbing the measurement. I don't broadly reveal the measurements until I feel strongly that I've accounted for the various causes.

Unfortunately, it is not so easy to repeat measurements for climate variables out in the field, and the system being measured is orders of magnitude more complex. So to get closer to accurate measurements you have to correct for various biases. For example, one known source of error in satellite measurements is that the satellite orbit drifts around and eventually decays. The correction for orbital variations is complicated and make take more than one try. The raw data are misleading unless you are prepared to do the corrections.

Now, I'm completely opposed to "fudging" the numbers to fit the hypothesis. I believe that most climatologists think so as well. But it's not at all unknown in science to have a few bad apples, or even some self-deluding researchers. The flap about cold fusion comes to mind as an example.

But one thing that shows up repeatedly is that other scientists step up and dispute the data and the conclusions. I can think of no example in scientific history where the amount of data was so large and so many scientists were dead wrong. We have about 50 years of detailed measurements that are multiply sourced, measure diverse phenomena, and have been scrutinized by independent teams of researchers. The strong consensus is for global warming.

It's clear that the reporting on this issue generally sucks. Some of that is the fault of the press, looking for simple answers. And some of it is a public that is grossly undereducated about science. And some of it is because there are those in the press and the public who feel compelled to dispute things they do not understand.