Global Cooling

[can't sit still]

PRETTY FUCKING FUNNY. They're comparing AGW to Piltdown man.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... s-to-turn/

[Isotopia]

I don't post things because I believe that they are the absolute truth. I post them because I believe that they should be considered.

I just noticed that.

How precious.

[dr.placebo]

PRETTY FUCKING FUNNY. They're comparing AGW to Piltdown man./

Of course. How silly of me to miss the similarity. I mean, the Piltdown Man data were overwhelming and from multiple sources, and the support of scientists publishing in the field was over 95%, and there was an ongoing international effort to acquire more data, and major polluters were giving millions to discredit the Piltdown Man.

Wait, that's not it. Maybe it's like something else. Maybe it's more like trying to discredit the whole idea about smoking contributing to cancer.

[can't sit still]

Dr, you can't talk money and ONLY talk one side; "major polluters were giving millions"
Carbon credits are expected to be bigger than the commodity market. The claim of the article is that the money was driving the investigation, NOT a quest for unbiased conclusions.

[dr.placebo]

First, I was trying to point out that comparing AGW with Piltdown is a non-starter with me for the reasons I gave. The implication is that AGW is a deliberate hoax. But equating the life work of thousands with a pathetic little hoax from 1913 is looking rather desperate. To quote from The Skeptic's Dictionary:

The main reason Piltdown was not spotted as a fraud much earlier was that scientists weren't allowed to see the evidence, which was kept securely locked in the British Museum.

Very nearly all of the data for AGW is widely available, not locked up (although I strongly dislike paywalls for scientific articles).

Second, it's very true that there is money on all sides of the energy issue (and there are very clearly more than two sides). What I note is that very large amounts of money are being spent on spreading anti-AGW nonsense. And a lot of the money sources are tied to fossil fuel producers (one big example, the Koch brothers [New Yorker article link]).

Third, I don't understand how carbon credits can be bigger than the commodity market if you include coal and oil as commodities. Is there a reasonable cite here that I can follow?

[dr.placebo]

It looks like the American Physical Society has responded to the Hal Lewis resignation:

http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/haroldlewis.cfm

Basically, they deny his allegations, and they are rather polite about it, given the language that Lewis used.

[can't sit still]

"spreading anti-AGW nonsense" Dr, you give yourself away with this. If it's anti AGW. then it must be nonsense. How very patronizing.

"Very nearly all of the data for AGW is widely available" Yes, and widely falsified in the extreme bias of sampling.
Dr. you're losing objectivity. My FIRST post was about a senate report that all 4 weather satellite systems agreed that GW had stopped. Geekster posted a graph and other info that appeared to show and extreme bias in the elimination of high altitude and high latitude data collection stations.
You never addressed the first post. The cites from Geekster completely negate any and ALL further claims that you make based on data. You have NO data.
I posted about the old rock-salt and quartz greenhouse experiment. You replied that there were later, more accurate methods. These later experiments have Far too many unknown inputs and unknown processes.
They ignore the Thernosphere, high-altitude plasma, solar variations, etc.

NONE of your arguments have any validity.
You have the ability to dismiss the data from the Senate sub-committee on the environment. You refuse to question the data set from East Anglia even though There have been several independent claims about eliminating colder stations.
I posted cites on both warming and cooling.
YOU have disqualified yourself by losing objectivity.

[Isotopia]

The APS Climate Change Commentary...

Climate Change Commentary

(adopted by Council on April 18, 2010)

There is a substantial body of peer reviewed scientific research to support the technical aspects of the 2007 APS statement. The purpose of the following commentary is to provide clarification and additional details.

The first sentence of the APS statement is broadly supported by observational data, physical principles, and global climate models. Greenhouse gas emissions are changing the Earth's energy balance on a planetary scale in ways that affect the climate over long periods of time (~100 years). Historical records indicate that the Earth’s climate is sensitive to energy changes, both external (the sun’s radiative output, changes in Earth’s orbit, etc.) and internal. Internal to our global system, it is not just the atmosphere, but also the oceans and land that are involved in the complex dynamics that result in global climate. Aerosols and particulates resulting from human and natural sources also play roles that can either offset or reinforce greenhouse gas effects. While there are factors driving the natural variability of climate (e.g., volcanoes, solar variability, oceanic oscillations), no known natural mechanisms have been proposed that explain all of the observed warming in the past century. Warming is observed in land-surface temperatures, sea-surface temperatures, and for the last 30 years, lower-atmosphere temperatures measured by satellite. The second sentence is a definition that should explicitly include water vapor. The third sentence notes various examples of human contributions to greenhouses gases. There are, of course, natural sources as well.

The evidence for global temperature rise over the last century is compelling. However, the word "incontrovertible" in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the 2007 APS statement is rarely used in science because by its very nature science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century. (Source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html)

The second sentence in the second paragraph states that without mitigating actions significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and health are likely. Such predicted disruptions are based on direct measurements (e.g., ocean acidification, rising sea levels, etc.), on the study of past climate change phenomena, and on climate models. Climate models calculate the effects of natural and anthropogenic changes on the ecosphere, such as doubling of the CO2-equivalent [1] concentration relative to its pre-industrial value by the year 2100. These models have uncertainties associated with radiative response functions, especially clouds and water vapor. However, the models show that water vapor has a net positive feedback effect (in addition to CO2 and other gases) on global temperatures. The impact of clouds is less certain because of their dual role as scatterers of incoming solar radiation and as greenhouse contributors. The uncertainty in the net effect of human activity on climate is reflected in the broad distribution of the predicted magnitude of the consequence of doubling of the CO2-equivalent concentration. The uncertainty in the estimates from various climate models for doubling CO2-equivalent concentration is in the range of 1°C to 3°C with the probability distributions having long tails out to much larger temperature changes.

The last sentence in the second paragraph articulates an immediate policy action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to deal with the possible catastrophic outcomes that could accompany large global temperature increases. Even with the uncertainties in the models, it is increasingly difficult to rule out that non-negligible increases in global temperature are a consequence of rising anthropogenic CO2. Thus given the significant risks associated with global climate change, prudent steps should be taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now while continuing to improve the observational data and the model predictions.

The third paragraph, first sentence, recommends an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on Earth's climate. This sentence should be interpreted broadly and more specifically: an enhanced effort is needed to understand both anthropogenic processes and the natural cycles that affect the Earth's climate. Improving the scientific understanding of all climate feedbacks is critical to reducing the uncertainty in modeling the consequences of doubling the CO2-equivalent concentration. In addition, more extensive and more accurate scientific measurements are needed to test the validity of climate models to increase confidence in their projections.

With regard to the last sentence of the APS statement, the role of physicists is not just "...to support policies and actions..." but also to participate actively in the research itself. Physicists can contribute in significant ways to understanding the physical processes underlying climate and to developing technological options for addressing and mitigating climate change.

[1] The concentration of CO2 that would give the same amount of radiative impact as a given mixture of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (methane, nitrous oxide, etc.). The models sum the radiative effects of all trace gases and treat the total as if it comes from an "equivalent" CO2 concentration. The calculation for all gases other than CO2 takes into account only increments relative to their pre-industrial values, so that the pre-industrial effect for CO2 and CO2-equivalent are the same.

[can't sit still]

VERY objective report.

[dr.placebo]

When I said that "very large amounts of money are being spent on spreading anti-AGW nonsense" I was stating my opinion about what is being spread in the media, especially the captive media. Certainly not all evidence or opinion that questions AGW is nonsense. And at least some of the pro-AGW material is exaggerated. But a rather high percentage of what gets funded as anti-AGW is truly nonsense, and I think that it is deliberately so. But that's not what I want to explore here.

CSS states that the AGW data is worthless because of bias. OK, prove it. In my experience having a large number of independent data sets pointing in the same direction tends to confirm the data.

CSS refers to a first post (5 Sep 2008, I think) about a "senate" article (titled "The Inhofe EPW Press Blog", actually by Marc Morano working for Sen Inhofe) on satellite data showing that global warming had reversed. Typical misleading cherry picking. If you look at the RSS data you find that the lower atmosphere trend for the last 30 years is 0.164 K/decade. There is a modest dip in 2007. But then we go up again for the past 3 years, continuing and even exceeding the 30-year trend. It's also completely consistent with the NASA and Hadley surface temperature trends, and even the UAH satellite data, although all of these data sets have some error (this job is not simple, see this Wiki article).

The Morano article cited by CSS is crowing about the arctic ice recovery. Well, we just had our 3rd lowest Arctic ice extent in 2010, and very likely our lowest ever Arctic ice volume. See this article by Tamino on the 30-year Arctic ice extent trend.

The same article cited by CSS quoted a Russian scientist as advising the world to "stock up on fur coats." I'm sure that Muscovites this summer found it helpful advice.

CSS posted about the old rock-salt and quartz greenhouse experiment. When I said that it was crude compared to modern methods, CSS replied that these modern methods have "Far too many unknown inputs and unknown processes. They ignore the Thernosphere, high-altitude plasma, solar variations, etc." Yet somehow the rock-salt experiment is supposed to take these into account? These ducks are just not lining up.

Another reason that I am able to dismiss the article from the senate sub-committee is because Inhofe is a shill for the oil companies, and would not recognize a scientific argument if it bit him in the butt (actually, many scientific arguments bite him in the butt, but to no avail).

CSS thinks that I've lost my objectivity, but I'm pretty objective about the data, and I remain open about explanations. I admit to being anti-Inhofe, and not especially objective about that clown. My objectivity about the consequences is in short supply, though, since I am quite concerned that in future generations the bill will come due for our refusal to act on the data. I don't have enough hubris to claim complete knowledge about anything, but I not so foolish as to think that we can use the entire earth as a toxic dump and not have any consequences.

[Snow]

Looking at 30 year trends is a joke! Almost all GW data presented is based on data sets within the last ~100 years, in the history of the earth it is equivalent to trying to look at stock market trends by only looking at a fraction of a second. Global climate change needs to be modeled over a much greater timeframe if it is to have any meaning at all. If you look at say a 500Ma trend, temperatures have been sharply dropping for the most part. By the nature of our planet it is, and will continue to cool over its lifetime. We should really be worried about when NYC will one again be covered by 1000' of ice !

Even the highest predicted sea level rise is below the average sea level for Pliestocene interglacial periods (~100k year-ish cycle), with many past levels 100' above what we call sea level. Whatever we are doing the fact of the matter is the ice age is still ending, ice is supposed to be melting and would be no matter what we are doing. Sea levels have been rising since recent pre-historical times, we should be used to it by now.

Should we be free to polute, no, but we should also look at the big picture, not just blindly buy into the carbon credit scam.

[ygmir]

Looking at 30 year trends is a joke! Almost all GW data presented is based on data sets within the last ~100 years, in the history of the earth it is equivalent to trying to look at stock market trends by only looking at a fraction of a second. Global climate change needs to be modeled over a much greater timeframe if it is to have any meaning at all. If you look at say a 500Ma trend, temperatures have been sharply dropping for the most part. By the nature of our planet it is, and will continue to cool over its lifetime. We should really be worried about when NYC will one again be covered by 1000' of ice !

Even the highest predicted sea level rise is below the average sea level for Pliestocene interglacial periods (~100k year-ish cycle), with many past levels 100' above what we call sea level. Whatever we are doing the fact of the matter is the ice age is still ending, ice is supposed to be melting and would be no matter what we are doing. Sea levels have been rising since recent pre-historical times, we should be used to it by now.

Should we be free to polute, no, but we should also look at the big picture, not just blindly buy into the carbon credit scam.

*applauding*

I still maintain, a lot of the hyperbole and hysteria is driven by those who will/want to, make money from it.

[dr.placebo]

I'm familiar with the paleoclimate data, at least at the educated non-specialist level. If you want to run those arguments, fine. But a 500 Ma span is not especially credible, since solar radiation and the position of continents were markedly different. I'm willing to look at a span where there is not so much solar change or tectonic drift interfering with the data. For example, this link:

The last time carbon dioxide levels were apparently as high as they are today — and were sustained at those levels — global temperatures were 5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit higher than they are today, the sea level was approximately 75 to 120 feet higher than today.

The other worrisome thing is that this CO2 change is happening at a pace probably not seen even then. The consequences may not be fatal to our species, but it won't be pleasant, and that risk is not acceptable to me.

Looking at paleoclimate can help us understand the forcing functions and the CO2 sensitivity. Proxies indicate that CO2 levels do track climate changes, and that through positive feedback these levels amplify climate change. What is different about the present is that the CO2 levels are leading, rather than following, the change.

The best reason to look at data since about 1959 is that that was the start of real earth science (International Geophysical Year). And only in the last 30 years have we had sufficient satellite data for the earth. And only in that time has the global warming signal reached a level and been understood sufficiently to be unambiguous.

I'm not personally an alarmist. On the other hand, those who deny the data and claim a giant conspiracy of scientists are not exactly non-alarmist. By all means let's look at cost-benefit analysis. Let's admit that carbon credits can be gamed (I don't like them, either). Let's throw in the cost of business-as-usual, too, because denying that it has a cost is dishonest.

Given what I've seen so far the cost of mitigation is less than the risk-adjusted cost of running fossil fuels until they are exhausted. Show me an honest risk assessment with contrary numbers and I'll listen.

[Snow]

So basically you're willynilly dismissing the entire history of the earths climate to look at a model for the last 30 years. That seems like a real accurate way to do it. I see they have you hook line and sinker and you are now even refusing to take actual data into consideration. Why? Oh yeah thats right the data doesn't fit the model, better ignore it. Seems to be a common approach in climate modeling, exactly why I don't trust it.

I am officially leaving this discussion bc it is moot to discuss something with someone who ignores the data right in front of them. Look the sky is falling.

[can't sit still]

The British are doing their part to combat global warming. They're going to sell off 50% of their forests. Dunno how much will be cut down;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/countr ... rests.html

[can't sit still]

This article has some info on the very inconvenient Medieval Warming Period http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/james ... iod-again/

[dr.placebo]

The cited article does not appear to me to contain much information. It is mostly a rant about the nefarious climate change cabal, that infamous band of 97% of climatologists who think that human activity is causing climate change.

Are they conspiring to get rid of the MWP? Not in the sense of denying it, but rather in pointing out that it was mostly regional, not global. The Watts article cited in the Delingpole article quotes a participant, Malcolm Hughes, and I will simply include the last sentence:

The pressing questions concern the dynamics of the climate system, and the relative roles of free and forced variations, whether the forcings are anthropogenic or not.

That does not sound like denial to me. It sounds like science.

For a different article on the MWP that shows the global temperature pattern, see:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieva ... ediate.htm

[can't sit still]

It looks like the U.N. wants to stop chemtrails;
http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5227
Dr Placebo, I found a fascinating article. While I subscribe to the idea of genetic drift, where did the genes come from in the first place? This is excellent;
http://www.naturalnews.com/023483_Chi_D ... ution.html

[dr.placebo]

I am very skeptical about chemtrails as being deliberate, although I would like to have more study and information about the climate effects of jet aircraft exhaust in the atmosphere.

About the UN conference, it appears to me that (stripped of the bureaucratic language) what they are concerned about are the unintended consequences of deliberate effects to change the earth's climate. Given the evidence about what happens by accident I tend to agree that introducing more variables may be a very bad idea. But the UN is unlikely to get the details right or get international cooperation, so the issue may be moot.

As to the origin of genes, I just don't have enough information, although when I see biblical quotes my skeptical sensors go on high alert. The genetic code is certainly complex, and one cannot prove that it was not designed by some intelligent agency. On the other hand, it is also hard to prove that it did not arise naturally. We just don't have enough understanding either way.

[geekster]

I see the whole "chemtrails" thing as pretty much part of the tin foil hat thing. Right up there with Obama "birfers" and 9/11 "trufers".


On the subject of global cooling, tropospheric air temperatures have now started their plummet in response to global sea surface temperatures (heat generally moves from ocean to atmosphere, not the other way around. Ever try to boil a pan of water by applying heat to the top of it?).

The current global anomaly of tropospheric air temperatures is closing in on zero.


This La Nina is kicking in.

[gojrracing]

Hi gyre. I think we should make a move for the sake of the world. :cry:

[can't sit still]

Both the British and German GOVs have admitted to spraying chemtrails;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002 ... calscience
Engineers and Architetcs for 9/11 truth have very convincing proofs that no building collapses in it's own footprint if it isn't mined.
The birthers don't have any possibility of being incorrect. Black's law makes it very clear that BOTH parents have to be native born for the offspring to be considered native born.

[can't sit still]

It looks like Britain will have a pretty cold winter;
http://iceagenow.com/2010_Other_Parts_of_the_World.htm

"CSS posted about the old rock-salt and quartz greenhouse experiment. When I said that it was crude compared to modern methods, CSS replied that these modern methods have "Far too many unknown inputs and unknown processes. They ignore the Thernosphere, high-altitude plasma, solar variations, etc." Yet somehow the rock-salt experiment is supposed to take these into account? These ducks are just not lining up. "

Dr, once again, you're losing objectivity. The rock salt experiment was designed to use a minimum of variables and answer only ONE question. The thermosphere and all the rest of that did not enter into the investigation of the single important result of the rock salt;
Does CO2 cause amplified heat absorption or not? It did not.
There were no ducks in the Greenhouse.

[dr.placebo]

1. Here's a better response about the rock salt experiment: it's irrelevant. The atmospheric greenhouse effect and the physics of an actual greenhouse are different. One works by scattering of solar infrared radiation, the other works by limiting convective cooling. For a longer explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect

2. Yes, Britain and other areas of the northern hemisphere may have colder winters, but this is not evidence against AGW. Cooler global average temperatures over 20-30 years while CO2 continued to rise would be evidence against AGW, but that's not happening. Oddly enough, there is a new study that indicates that some winter cooling is linked to AGW:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 114028.htm

[can't sit still]

Dr, the salt experiment is still relevant. The re-radiation from the surface must still be absorbed. The rate of absorption is still dependent on the heat-absorption properties of greenhouse gases. The Wiki article is guilty of the huge sin of omission that I see in all the literature. NOBODY will talk about the comparative effect of water vapor in relation to CO2. Water vapor is the # 1 greenhouse gas and it is thoroughly ignored in outcomes.
I have no interest in science that is half-truths.

The second article is extremely speculative and tentative. We'll see.
The post on cold in Britain is of interest but NO proof of anything.

[dr.placebo]

CSS, I don't think that you understood my point. Allow me to elaborate.

The Wood experiment was designed to show that in an actual greenhouse it is convection that is the dominant mechanism for heat loss, not radiation. The reason that the experiment is irrelevant to the atmosphere is that at higher altitudes this is no longer true - radiation dominates. Wood did not know this, but it follows from the fact that the lower troposphere is nearly opaque to most infrared. See

http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html

Now, as for water vapor, no honest person who is at all educated about climate science would deny the importance of water vapor. See

http://www.skepticalscience.com/water-v ... -basic.htm

The reason that CO2 is important is that an increase in atmospheric CO2 takes a long time to go away. It is persistent, and that means that the time integrated effect of CO2 is much larger for a given increment of CO2 than for an equivalent increment of H2O. CH4 is even more potent per molecule, but breaks down into CO2 and H2O, so it is not persistent either.

The initial link for cold weather in Britain was due to you, CSS. I responded with a link that gave a follow-on report. Neither link is proof, nor even evidence. But if you think that the first link is germane then you should consider the second one as well.

[can't sit still]

Nope, not germane. Thanks for the clarification. True, high-altitude convection---radiation is a whole different story.

"As to the origin of genes, I just don't have enough information, although when I see biblical quotes my skeptical sensors go on high alert. The genetic code is certainly complex, and one cannot prove that it was not designed by some intelligent agency" Placebo

Forget the bible and forget god. I'm talking about an intelligent agent, NOT god. As you Know, our solar system is a "recent" creation. By volume most of the elements heavier than iron were created by supernovae and stellar-ash from previous stars. WE're formed from the ash of long-dead stars.
It's easy to imagine some long-dead? race seeding the stars with their DNA. Then, there's the possibility "presented" in "Allegro non Troppo" to go along with the music of Bolero.
All very interesting.

[can't sit still]

How very cute;
Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world's resources will be negotiated.

http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ipcc- ... ealth.html

[can't sit still]

Now, you have to add trillions of tons of methane to the varaibles;
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101121/ap_ ... dzaWJlcg--

[can't sit still]

Dr. did you see the news about Kyoto;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... apan-kyoto
Seems strange.