Scientists agree ... Consensus on Global Warming by Ghoulman

Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
I didn't think to give you a full explanation of an event which you said you were fully aware, and you proved rather handily that you were bluffing when you said you did. Someone working in the sciences not getting this reference is like a professor of English not understanding the phrase, "a word in your shell-like". Here's some help for the future Finn, if you don't know something, just say, "I do not know that." That is so much easier.

When did I say I was “fully aware” of this event? In fact what I actually did say was:

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
And I vaguely remember that “to-do.” Although I didn’t pay much attention to it. Climatology is only marginally related to my field of study so I tend to follow the major issues and not get involved very deeply in the internal conflicts.

So explain to me how “vaguely remember” has become “fully aware.”

Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
Go and investigate for yourself the paper you keep offering, heck maybe you'll even read it, and then be so kind as to tell the others here the results. Investigate the paper, the institute, the periodical, and their sources both scientific and financial. Review the scandal (gawd, even scandals in science are boring) and connect the dots.

But I don't think you will, because what you are bound to find conflicts too violently with your beliefs. And once you've made up your mind, you've never been wrong. Have you?

I think your recent hysterics is a result of discovering something that conflicts with your beliefs. You claimed that this paper was not published in a peer-reviewed article, but when I demonstrated that it in fact was published in a peer-reviewed article, instead of responding to that information, you attacked me for trying to “trick” you. Your ability to reason seems to be extremely impaired by discovering that two different URLs can point to the same information. I’m supposed to believe that this plea to emotion is legitimate criticism?

Instead of dealing with the evidence you have reverted to the same ad hominem that rue and sigma were involved in and attempt to impeach my character by suggesting that I’m not scientist when I say I am. It is my belief that such ad hominem generally indicates the limit of one’s argument, so instead of admitting your own lack of response, you attack. A rather childish form of discourse, in my opinion.

You may very well be correct, in that this paper might be the paper that the NAS is referring to. I’m talking with some colleagues at work in the hopes of determining that very thing. But until I do, your ad hominem and hysterics don’t breed much confidence for your claim, however when I find out something, I’ll post it in this thread. If indeed this paper is the paper referenced by the NAS, then it raises the question of why the NAS chooses to wrongly characterize this paper as one that is not published in a peer-reviewed article. Indeed, IF this paper is the one in question, there would seem to be deception on both sides.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 31, 2005 8:56 PM

NEUTRINOLAD

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
I’m talking with some colleagues at work in the hopes of determining that very thing.

So you're going to ask your buddies? That's how you're going to find out? Why don't you get your mom's input while you're at it?

Way to research, Aristotle.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 31, 2005 9:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NeutrinoLad:
So you're going to ask your buddies? That's how you're going to find out? Why don't you get your mom's input while you're at it?

Maybe I will. At this point, I’m fairly certain whatever input she could offer would be more intelligent then yours.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 1, 2005 8:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The increase in temperatures is valid, reliable, and significant. Both the rate of increase and the absolute values are significantly different, based on geological evidence (ice cores and so forth).

The greenhouse effect is the best explanation so far, because other effects (change is solar output, change in earth orbit, contrails and NO2 etc.) have been ruled out. (There are examples of significant COOLING, but those are generally explainable in terms volcanic activity.)

CO2 is not the most powerful greenhouse gas. Others such as methane (also a product of human activity) influence global warming. However, just because it is ONE factor of several (man-made) factors doesn't mean action shouldn't be taken. Using medical policy as an example, although it is more effective and efficient to reduce heart attacks though diet and exercise, it is very difficult to get people to actually do what is good for them, so we turn- successfully- to statins and other measures to treat cardiac problems.

Fossil fuel consumption can EASILY be reduced, especially in the USA, where we spend 60% of our energy just moving things around. Requiring better vehicle fuel economy would be a technologically easy step.

And just because you work on one aspect of the problem (reducing CO2 emissions) doesn't prohibit taking other approaches. (How did you get the idea that this is an "either/or" problem?) We SHOULD indeed be working on reducing population growth (hopefullly on reducing population absolute values) because we're also at the limti of the water and nitrogen cycles. Reforestation might work (although most CO2 absorption occurs in the ocean.) The fact that we are ACCUMULATING CO2 tells you that we have exceeded the capacity of the carbon cylce.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 1, 2005 1:45 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I think I know how someone with access to super-secret information can get a science degree w/ apparently nothing rubbing off...

Quote:
At least 28 senior-level employees had degrees from diploma mills, the GAO found, while cautioning that "this number is believed to be an understatement."... and three unnamed managers with super-secret Q-level security clearance at the National Nuclear Security Administration—including an Air Force lieutenant colonel who attended no classes and took no tests to get a promotion-enabling master's degree from LaSalle University, a diploma mill affiliated with Kent College and also based in Mandeville.

From
www.reason.com "Call Me Doktor"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 1, 2005 3:06 PM

I spoke to a friend of mine at work, who is an atmospheric physicists and works as our resident climatologist. He’s not an expert on the topic of global warming nor do I think he works much in the theoretical area, but like me, he could only vaguely recall the controversy surrounding this petition. His thought on the paper was that some of the authors’ conclusions were “stretching.” I tend to agreed.

I did a search for this paper and found that this paper has been published since the publication in the Medical Sentinel. Most notably is a publication in Climate Research, a peer-reviewed journal of climatology.

The controversy surrounding this paper began when it was used to bolster a petition prior to its publication. This was a mistake that cast doubt on the paper early on. Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the NAS and supporter of the petition, urged the authors to submit the paper for publication, but Dr. Robinson, the principal author of the draft version, claimed that doing so would prevent the paper from being used by the petition. It is clear that the authors had political motivations in their use of this paper. To what degree this political motivation influences the conclusions of this paper is hard to say, but probably some.

While reading through some old news, I came across a New York Times article on the controversy, and found this paragraph interesting.

“Many atmospheric scientists and ecologists who believe global warming to be a serious threat had expressed anger and alarm over the article because it was printed in a format and type face similar to that of the academy's own journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In his letter, Dr. Seitz, a longtime skeptic on the question of global warming, also identified himself as a past academy president.” [emphasis mine]
The New York Times, "Science Academy Disputes Attack On Global Warming," April 22, 1998.

Note that the New York Times qualifies the group of “atmospheric scientists and ecologist” who were upset over this article as being those “who believe global warming to be a serious threat.” It seems reasonable that this group of people would find fault in this paper’s conclusions regardless of how, when or where it was published. And since I don’t tend to fall into the category of someone who would define global warming to be a “serious threat,” I probably didn’t pay much attention to the paper when it first came out.

Finally, on the issue of this paper’s credibility: I find some of the conclusion to be questionable, but what is certain is that this paper is published in, not one, but at least two peer-reviewed scientific journals, one of them being a journal of climatology. So I find it equally questionable that the NAS would characterize this paper as being one that was not published in any peer-reviewed journal, as this is patently false. In my opinion, while the conclusions that this paper raises are certainly up for debate, the credibility of this paper as a scientific article is not, and therefore represents valid scientific dissent from the mainstream.

ADD: After reading the version of this paper published in Climate Research it appears that there have been made some simply changes to the conclusions that seem to make this a much stronger paper.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 1, 2005 3:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think I know how someone with access to super-secret information can get a science degree w/ apparently nothing rubbing off...

One need not have a Q-level clearance to get fake degree from an unaccredited college. Anyone can do it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, February 1, 2005 4:48 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Just dropping in for a quick comment: in terms of correlation v causation, I feel the need to reiterate that science never proves anything, it can only disprove.

That aside, I feel there is some idea that factors are being generated simply by fudging them within the model to make the numbers 'work out'. Nothing could be further from the truth. The CO2 'greenhouse gas factor' was worked out in laboratories (as was the factor for H2 and other greenhouse gases). Others of the many factors in the model have been worked out the same way. Tropical jungles - can they be counted on to absorb excess CO2? The answer is no. (Data was obtained by meticulous decades-long study of large areas of jungle. The mechanism is - CO2 uptake does not go up during the day as the plants are already optimized, but metabolic activity and sugar-burning - respiration - does go up at night. The plants are faring poorly in the warmer nights.)

One of the interesting things about the global warming model is that it is making predictions which are being supported by data. And every time it results in another accurate prediction (about CO2, clouds, etc), the whole concept is strengthened.

I do believe that a single study can overturn a large body of accumulated data. However, that study has to be sufficiently central and solid. Nothing I have seen is that revolutionary.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 2, 2005 2:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
1) Are increased temperatures said to represent global climate valid, reliable, and significant?
(valid = accurate and representative of the variable we're trying to measure, reliable = replicable, and significant = not random fluctuation)
2) Is there a valid, reliable, and significant correlation between increased global temperatures and increased CO2?
3) Is the greenhouse effect the most significant contributor to increased global temperatures? Can other reasons we might be heating up be dismissed?
4) Is the CO2 increase large enough to affect global climate? Can other greenhouse gases (e.g. water vapor) be ruled out as having a more substantial effect?
5) Are the computer models used to predict CO2 effects on global climate valid?
6) Would restrictions in fossil fuel emissions reduce CO2 enough to change global climate? Would fossil fuel restrictions reduce more CO2 than other policy changes, such as population growth restrictions (6 billion people breathing 24/7 is a LOT of CO2) or reforestation/ deforestation restrictions?

All very good questions.

The mean global temperature does seem to have increased over the course of the last century. It is difficult to say how significant this increase is, as it’s within the margin of error. Although I would say that it probably has increased. Even more puzzling is that a close examination of the data reveals that most of the warming over the course of the last century occurred prior to 1940, before the onset of the rapid increases in greenhouse gasses. It’s hard to imagine how carbon dioxide (et al) could be the cause of an increase in global temperature when those gases don’t appear to have existed in the atmosphere. At the very least I would have to say that there is some other mechanism involved, if these temperatures are to be believed. But there are many studies that suggest that these temperatures may not be believable as a reliable source of global temperature. There are reliable studies that suggest that the global temperature may not have actually increased significantly at all. The models tend to do a very poor job of predicting current global temperatures, much less future global temperatures; almost consistently over predicting. And they don’t seem to predict satellite and balloon data at all, which leads to the possibility that the models may be doing nothing more then mirroring the intent of the modeler. Until the models improve enough so that they can be checked against current data, most of the issues surrounding global warming will remain theoretical.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 2, 2005 4:28 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The problem with Finn is that he thinks if he says something often enough, people will mistake it for facts. So, now for some real scientific data from Woods Hole Research Group, with url reference:
http://www.whrc.org/resources/online_publications/warming_earth/scient
ific_evidence.htm

Scientific Evidence
One can also observe that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and the mean annual global temperature have been increasing since the end of the last ice age approximately 10,000 years ago. Why then are the most recent increases of such concern? First, because the most recent increases are occurring at rates that have not been observed since the last ice age and have only previously been observed in association with dramatic shifts in climate. Second, the dramatic increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere over the past 150 years (from about 280 parts per million to about 360 parts per million) is largely due to anthropogenic (human-caused) effects.
As predicted by the reports of the IPCC, the climate has indeed been changing. The ten hottest years in the period of accurate instrumental data (since the late 1800s) have all occurred since 1989. The warmest year was 1998, followed by 2002 and 2003 (tied), 2001, 1997, 1995, 1990 & 1999 (tied) and 1991 & 2000 (tied).
The temperature data for 1998 are staggering. Data collected by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) indicate that 1998 was by far the warmest year in recorded history. Global mean surface temperature in 1998 was 0.66 °C (1.20 °F) above the long-term (1880-1997) average value of 13.8 °C (56.9 °F). It is very possible for a particular year to be the warmest year on record and not be warmest on record for any single month. However, for 9 of the 12 months of 1998 the global average temperature has exceeded the monthly records for all previously recorded years. In other words, in the 100+ years that temperature data have been recorded, there has never been a warmer January, February, March, April, or May, June, July, August or October than in 1998. In addition, it's worth noting that the previous monthly records had all been established within the last ten years - between 1988 and 1997.
While the concentrations of almost all greenhouse gases have been increasing since the Industrial Revolution, carbon dioxide has had the greatest effect on changing the climate. During the 1980's humans released 5.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually by burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas) for heat, transportation, and electricity. An additional 1.6 billion tons was released from anthropogenic (human-induced) changes in land-use (i.e. clearing land for agriculture, pastures, etc.) mostly through deforestation in the tropics.

Where does that 7.2 billion tons of atmospheric carbon go? Ocean modelers find that the ocean takes up approximately 2 billion tons a year. Around 2 billion tons are taken up by a presently unidentified "sink" or reservoir of carbon (see The Missing Carbon Sink).A paper identifying temperate soils as the missing carbon sink was published within the last few weeks. Rue This leaves a remainder of 3.2 billion tons of CO2, and global atmospheric measurements indicate that this amount is simply being added to existing concentrations already present in the atmosphere. The result is that the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is increasing at a rate of approximately 1.5 ppm (parts per million) per year and overall it has increased about 30% since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

And the website has dramatic graphs which show breakout CO2 and temperature increases, as well as other equally dramatic graphics over time periods ranging from 150,000 to 100 years. Anyway, you get the idea. Just 'cause Finn says it's so, don't make it so.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 2, 2005 6:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Just 'cause Finn says it's so, don't make it so.

Absolutely right. And just because you, or the WHRC, or the IPCC says so doesn't make it so either. That has been my point all along. People need to weigh all arguments against the rigors of scientific methodology. We all need to draw conclusions from the evidence rather than from the word of "authorities," even if that word in found in a peer-reviewed journal. (I've seen a lot of crap in peer-reviewed journals. The articles are only as good as the standards of those "peers.") This sort of critical thinking doesn't require that we become experts in the field--it only requires that we understand scientific and statistical reasoning in order to become astute consumers of research.

--"There are 3 types of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.-- attributed to Mark Twain

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 2, 2005 6:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And the website has dramatic graphs which show breakout CO2 and temperature increases, as well as other equally dramatic graphics over time periods ranging from 150,000 to 100 years. Anyway, you get the idea. Just 'cause Finn says it's so, don't make it so.

True. But the evidence speaks for itself.

I hope everyone interested does take rue’s advice and examines the graphs this site has to offer. Examine the graph titled “Carbon Dioxide Concentrations.” This is accurate data as far as I know; collected at the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii (Keeling & Whorf, CDRG). Indeed it shows a rapid increase in Carbon Dioxide during the period since 1958 when data collection began. Associated with this data is (presumably) arctic ice core data from which an estimate of carbon dioxide concentration can be deemed. I have no problem with this information. It is quite accepted.

The next graph shows mean global temperature from 1860 to perhaps 2000. Once again this is quite accepted; it appears in many papers. Now compare the graphs. You’ll see that the bulk of the warming occurred between the later decades of the 19th century up to about 1940. Indeed, according to this graph the warming during that period was over 1 degree F. From the Carbon Dioxide Graph one can see that the concentration of carbon dioxide increased from 290ppm to ~300ppm. However, the warming since 1940 has been only ~0.5 degree F, but since 1940 the concentration of Carbon Dioxide has gone from ~300ppm to ~360ppm. Indeed it was at the onset of this increase in carbon dioxide that the mean global temperature experienced the first decrease in at least almost a hundred years. In other words the bulk of the warming occurred prior to the bulk of the increase in carbon dioxide.

Rue claims that the “global warming model … is making predictions which are being supported by data.” Maybe, maybe not. MAYBE we see an increase in mean global temperature due to an increase in carbon dioxide concentration. But if this were the only or even predominate mechanism involved why does the data clearly indicate that the bulk of the warming occurred BEFORE the bulk of the increase in carbon dioxide concentration?

This is simply a first order examination of the data using the simple graphs in a site that rue posted.

Later the site makes note of the collapse of Larson B ice shelf in 2002 as physical indication of a warming trend. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn’t. This is a common mantra of global warming advocates, but huge icebergs in the Antarctic are hardly unusual. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica there have been at least 2 maybe 3 icebergs as large or larger then the Larsen B ice shelf in the Antarctic since 1927, and there are reports of huge icebergs going back as far 1854. Considering the lack of exploration of the Antarctic, there very likely could have been two or three collapses the size of the Larsen B ice shelf per century for the last countless centuries. This does not constitute reliable evidence of global warming, much less anthropogenic global warming.

“One of the largest icebergs sighted was over 140 kilometres in length. This tabular iceberg was first sighted in 1927, and presumably the same iceberg was later seen in 1931, at which time it was 100 kilometres long. The largest known Antarctic iceberg was measured by the icebreaker USS Glacier in 1956; it had a length of 333 kilometres and a width of 100 kilometres.”
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=65705

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2005 4:30 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

You're right about peer-reviewed journals. That's what makes some journals like Science, Nature, BMJ etc so prestigious, and others ... not so much.

I do think understanding the science takes some level of expertise, or at least sufficient effort.

I think one needs to know the 'langauge' of the science (each one has its own) as well as how the basic tools are used and what they are good for. And one needs to make an effort to compare articles to each other. Otherwise, one is likely to be snowed by convincing, but incomplete, erroneous, or biased, claptrap.

That's why I thought the Wood's Hole website was good. They did provide links to a variety of data sources.

My position has been and continues to be: follow the data. In that we definitely agree.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2005 4:48 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,
I suppose one could try to argue 'most' global warming occurred early if one is silly enough to use the hump that maxes out in 1940 (certainly an anomalous region in global mean temperature) - look! the GMT went up 0.6 degrees before 1940 but only 0.3 degrees after! But then I could use the dip that maxes low near 1963 (the other anomalous region) to 'prove' that most global warming occured recently - only 3.5 degrees in 100 years, but a shocking 5.5 degrees in a mere 40!

You remind me of a joke we have here: first plot your graph, then chart your data.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2005 5:16 PM

Facts are facts. I didn’t make it up; this is what the data says. But I guess the data can’t possibly be right if it doesn’t serve to completely support the global warming hypothesis. At least this is the position many global warming advocates seem to take. (Your previously defined 'position' would seem to be constrained by this very thing.)

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2005 7:50 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Facts are facts. I didn’t make it up; this is what the data says.

Where I work, this is considered one of the 'sins' of science gone bad - cherry-picking your data. Hmm, sounds like WMD. Learn much from your master?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 3, 2005 8:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Quote:
Facts are facts. I didn’t make it up; this is what the data says.

Where I work, this is considered one of the 'sins' of science gone bad - cherry-picking your data. Hmm, sounds like WMD. Learn much from your master?

Clearly the facts say otherwise. The data that you posted demonstrates that the bulk of the warming occurred prior to the bulk of the increase in carbon dioxide. This is a fact. You ignore it because it doesn’t suit what you want to be true. Balloon and satellite data don’t show any appreciable warming at all. This, I imagine, is also data you’ve ignored.

According to you:

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
My position has been and continues to be: follow the data. In that we definitely agree.

Follow the data as long as it leads you where you want it to, eh? If it doesn’t then it’s “anomalous.” Well it is anomalous. If you assume that an anthropogenic greenhouse effect is the only or predominant mechanism, then a lot of data becomes anomalous. The question is, how closely do you want to adhere to this sectarian philosophy of yours? If your sticking to a conclusion that forces most of the data to become anomalous, then it’s probably a poor conclusion. As I’ve been saying all along, the data is inconclusive. You’re the one trying to fit a shape to it, but if it were really your intent to “follow the data” then you would at the very least accept its inconclusiveness. Your intent, however, is to push an ideology, I think, not science.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2005 6:29 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Finn,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Click on the graph to get a larger image

How to explain this to a non-scientist who apparently can't read a graph ...

Most warming occurred since 1980.

How you can find that:
In simple terms, find the total span of temperature change (it is 0.8, from a low of - 0.3 to a high of + 0.5). Then find the midpoint of temperature change (it is at + 0.1). Draw a horizontal line at + 0.1 to the point where the + 0.1 line crosses the temperature graph, and look down to find the year. It is 1980.

In 1980 the two lines clearly cross. It took 100 years (between 1880 and 1980) for the temperature to go halfway up to its current level. It took only 25 years (from 1980 to 2005) to go up the rest of the way.

While you are in Wikipedia, you might want to look up some basic information about global warming. You might also look up:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Global_warming_hypothesis which has an even-handed approach to the pros and cons of the global warming debate.

But, to get off the topic of this one chart, there is a better analysis of global warming than eyeballing a crude graph.

As global warming naysayers are always quick to point out, earth's temperature is about more than CO2. And that is where the utility of climate modeling happens. Its strength is its ability to account for other influences and feedback loops. The following graph shows modeled natural, anthropogenic and total global warming, and compares them against actual measures. The model, which runs from about 1860 to 2000, is accurate in calculating temperatures:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig12-7.htm
This goes far beyond the lame 'eyeball' test, and it supports the idea of human-caused global warming.

Quote:
Balloon and satellite data don’t show any appreciable warming at all.

SOME balloon and satelite data show minimal warming. Other data shows quite a bit. Recently: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041129113717.htm

Quote:
In the case of the troposphere, the layer from the surface to an altitude of about 7.5 miles, where most weather occurs, it was believed there had been less warming than what was recorded at the surface. However, Fu's team determined the satellite readings of the troposphere were imprecise because about one-fifth of the signal actually came from a higher atmosphere layer called the stratosphere, which for the last few decades has been cooling several times faster than the troposphere has been warming.

Now, I did just post the url a little while ago so you should have no excuse for not having followed it up, but it seems you screen your data for conformance to your views.

And for anyone else who has made it this far:

Somewhat technical dissection of global warming debate, funny because it's unusually blunt:
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/science/?_start=41

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 4, 2005 8:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Click on the graph to get a larger image

How to explain this to a non-scientist who apparently can't read a graph ...

Most warming occurred since 1980.

How you can find that:
In simple terms, find the total span of temperature change (it is 0.8, from a low of - 0.3 to a high of + 0.5). Then find the midpoint of temperature change (it is at + 0.1). Draw a horizontal line at + 0.1 to the point where the + 0.1 line crosses the temperature graph, and look down to find the year. It is 1980.

In 1980 the two lines clearly cross. It took 100 years (between 1880 and 1980) for the temperature to go halfway up to its current level. It took only 25 years (from 1980 to 2005) to go up the rest of the way.

Aside from her typical jab at me, what rue is referring to here is something that climatologists have dubbed “Mann’s Hockey Stick.” Although rue's grasp of the field seems to be rather sectarian, so let me explain. In 1999 Paleoclimatologist Michael Mann claimed to have reconstructed temperatures from proxy data, in this case tree rings, over the last 1000 years (Mann et al.). The paper presented the data in a graph, which is actually the very graph that rue is talking about. It has gotten a lot of publicity from the global warming advocates. Is Mann’s “hockey stick” correct? Well, certainly rue will tell you that its gospel. It can’t possible be wrong because it support her dogma. No matter what she claims about ‘following the data’ she has consistently pushed an ideology not the data. That’s her position. Here’s mine:

The truth is I don’t know. Maybe Mann is right. But if he is, how do you explain the balloon and satellite data, which show very little warming? How do you explain the “anomalies” in the data? But more importantly, why doesn’t Mann’s data represent the “Medieval warming period” and the “little ice age?” These are two events that have been documented with dozens, perhaps hundreds, of papers in historical study over dozens of years. In fact they are both quit accepted among historians and are both based on study and evidence that is completely independent of the global warming controversy. One would expect that these two events would be illustrated in Mann’s data, yet instead what Mann’s data seems to illustrate is the party line of the IPCC. Now maybe these two events never actually occurred, and thousands of historians have simply been wrong for apparently mysterious reasons, OR maybe Mann’s data is wrong.

An examination of Mann’s data actually raises several questions. First, Mann’s data is described as being for the Northern Hemisphere, but Mann actually included data from the Southern Hemisphere. Further the comparison between proxy data and measured temperature is questionable and is presented without error bars, and is admittedly base solely on a single sample for normalization of the data. Perhaps the certainty (or lack thereof) in the data was of less importance then the conclusion? I don’t know, but how much reliability is there in the proxy data? Tree ring data is dependent on more then just surface temperature: rainfall, fires, competition with other trees, infestations, to name a few. All of which add uncertainty, which was completely lacking in Mann’s paper.

Finally, McIntyre et al claims to have fixed some of the statistical uncertainties that plague Mann’s data, and arrived at a new reconstruction. Then more recently Esper et al supported McIntyre et al. Interestingly enough both of these reconstructions are not only more consistent with each other then with Mann’s reconstruction, but also with the Medieval Warming Period as well as the Little Ice Age. This means that at least it is more consistent with accepted data then Mann’s. It also doesn’t support either the IPCC’s or rue contention that the current apparent increase in global mean surface temperature is unique.

Mann, M.E., R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes, 1999. Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: inferences, uncertainties, and limitations. Geophysical Research Letters, 26, 759–762.

Esper J., D.C. Frank, and J.S. Wilson, 2004. Climate reconstructions: Low-frequency ambition and high-frequency ratification. Eos, 85, 133,120.

McIntyre, S., and R. McKitrick, 2003. Corrections to the Mann et. al. (1998) Proxy database and Northern Hemispheric average temperature series. Energy & Environment,14, 751-771.

Further discussion on McIntyre et al and Esper et al reconstruction:
http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/wca/2004/wca_15epf.html

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
SOME balloon and satelite data show minimal warming. Other data shows quite a bit. Recently: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041129113717.htm
Quote:
In the case of the troposphere, the layer from the surface to an altitude of about 7.5 miles, where most weather occurs, it was believed there had been less warming than what was recorded at the surface. However, Fu's team determined the satellite readings of the troposphere were imprecise because about one-fifth of the signal actually came from a higher atmosphere layer called the stratosphere, which for the last few decades has been cooling several times faster than the troposphere has been warming.
Now, I did just post the url a little while ago so you should have no excuse for not having followed it up, but it seems you screen your data for conformance to your views.

I’m not familiar with Fu’s paper, but I’m interested in reading it. However, let me point out that this is not the first evidence of satellite data bias. A paper by Frank Wentz demonstrated that there was a bias in the microwave data in Christy et al. There was much hooraying and glee amongst the global warming advocates, but when the bias was removed the change in the temperature was still statically insignificant, meaning there was still no warming.

So you’ll forgive me if I reserve my judgment on this paper until I’ve read it and had time to analysis and research the results. Who knows, rue, maybe you’re right, but I don’t have your god-like omniscience to be able to ascertain conclusions from inconclusive data, so I’ll have to do things the old fashion way, using science instead.

ADD: I just read Fu’s paper. An interesting work, that I will need more time to completely decipher, but some quick responses based on what I’ve discerned so far (my opinion may change after further analysis.)

It seems that Fu has made some statistical assumptions on the bias due to the stratosphere based on some observed measurements. I’m still not sure how he has done this, but he has subtracted this bias from microwave data that has been used to measure temperatures in the troposphere. His technique may or may not be valid; that still has yet to be seen, but if he has managed to correct the data then he will have eliminated the supposed contributions of about 15% from the stratosphere. We’ll see. Christy has provided a rebuttal to Fu’s paper in Science magazine. Interestingly enough the article that rue posted points out that Christy’s rebuttal was not peer-reviewed. That’s true. Science is not a peer-reviewed journal. However, neither is Nature, the journal in which Fu’s paper was published. Important information for those concerned with peer-review, like rue and neutrinolad. Fu's paper is not peer-reviewed.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, February 9, 2005 6:09 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Addressing the shortest item first:

Quote:
Science is not a peer-reviewed journal. However, neither is Nature.

NATURE (Nature Publishing Group)
http://npg.nature.com/npg/servlet/Content?data=xml/05_sub.xml&style=xm
l/05_sub.xsl
"During peer review you can log back in to your own unique homepage on the system. The system will tell you status information as your paper moves through peer review."
SCIENCE
http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/contribinfo/home.shtml
"Science is a weekly, peer-reviewed journal that publishes significant original scientific research ..."

USE MY LINKS TO FIND BROAD DISCUSSION

Contrary to your claims, I included links that discussed both historical and current pros and cons global warming.
There are also critiques of M&M (which you cite) which point out its fatal technical errors (there are more than one).
I (generally) only post urls that anyone can link (a limited number require paid subscription), but you shouldn't mistake it for lack of information or analysis on my part.
Your claims that either I or my postings are biased are demonstrably false. However, they do reflect on you.

Every url you posted was to an anti-global warming front group:

Quote:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p41.htm
http://www.oism.org/pproject/review.pdf
http://www.heartland.org/pdf/23295m.pdf
http://www.haciendapub.com/medsent.html

YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE HOCKEY STICK is demonstrably wrong

Quote:
You’ll see that the bulk of the warming occurred between the later decades of the 19th century up to about 1940.

Quote:
the bulk of the warming occurred prior to the bulk of the increase in carbon dioxide. This is a fact.

Since you insisted on your interpretation of that particular graph, I addressed your interpretation specifically and definitively. I noticed you have not repeated your claim that most global warming happened before 1940. Shall I conclude you concede the point?
(I know where you got that claim from, but you to applied that analysis to the wrong graph.)

YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED CURRENT CLIMATE MODELS with excellent agreement to measured temperatures

Then I said to move off that graph, as the 'eyeball' approach was a limited and unscientific analysis of global warming. I'm glad to see you agree with me.
I did then post some graphs of recently modeled climate effects, with excellent agreement to measured temperatures. The model's ability to predict observed temperatures is one measure lending it support (or, a better way to put it, the climate model is not disproved). The global climate model is based on anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming. You completely failed to address the success of recent climate models.

OTHER MEASUREMENTS YOU DON'T ADDRESS

There were other urls posted to other measurements. And based on your 'expertise' I'm sure you are aware of the compilation of over a century of ocean surface temperatures which was concluded about 2 years ago (I did not post that particular url). Overall, the sheer amount and scope of data (including ocean temperature readings, ice cores, tree rings, land temperature measurements, the retreat of glaciers and ice caps etc) indicates a definitive and undeniable global warming.

BALLOON AND SATELLITE DATA IS NOT A DEATH BLOW

As to balloon and satellite data, I did post urls which discussed that at length. Even way back when, some calculations indicated minimal warming, while others indicated quite a bit. The interpretation is not one-sided as you claim, it is about 50/50. (I would call that equivocal, and certainly not the death-blow you portray.)

I embedded one specific error in my postings. Perhaps you will respond to it.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 10, 2005 3:55 AM

CONNORFLYNN

After reading all the various posts by Sigma and Rue and a few others I've decided we have only one recourse.

We must all move back to the pre-mechanized age. No more power..candles are cheaper and less damaging to the atmosphere. Eventually we will need to move away from flames in general to reduce the production of CO. No more transportation..walking is better for you. Obviously we can't ride horses or other potential beasts of burden..because they must all be killed, while we're at it we should kill all animal lifeforms (Evil methane producing beasts that they all are).

After we have removed all potential Non-Human methane producers, we must prevent ourselves from eating any of the Earths vegetation..since after all vegetation is important for producing Oxygen and most forms of vegetation help create that nice smelly Methane, humans pride themselves on creating in their bellies.

Once we have learned how to eat rocks (Hopefully ones low in sulfur..that gorram Methane problem again), we should determine how many human beings should be allowed to exist on good ol Mother Earth. After we have determined the number, we should hold lotteries and kill everyone off whose number is drawn. Since we can't use anything but rocks (Don't want to drown them and cant shoot them or run them over and god forbid use foreign chemicals)..we'll have to find some big ones, but damn thats going to be hard because we nolonger have any machinery to get the really big ones. Ah well..it'll just take awhile.

Once we have the population size under control, all men will need to have their balls removed..we can't take any chances that we might procreate and increase the population.

So ultimately we will become rock-eating naked savages, waiting for the next Ice Age to start the process over.

Finally..I don't care about global warming, I'm sure it exists. I don't think 99% of the world cares about Global warming. I look forward to the day the poles reverse and I'm living in a tropical setting.

One thing I'm absolutely sure of..humans don't control nature. We don't control the power of the Earth, as a matter of fact the Earth has this uncanny ability to shrug us off like fleas without any warning. It was around long before us and will be around long after we are gone. I find it almost humorous to think that we humans believe that we ultimately can have an effect on the Earth in general. The only thing we can have an effect on is whether or not we survive for another 1000 years or so. If I were a betting man..and I'm not. I'd say we have a 50-50 shot at best with all the nukes around..so what's everyone worried about? Ultimately Human existence will just be a blip on the history of the Earth and I'm not under any delusions that we will be the cause of the end of the world. It will go on existing, long after humans cease to, until something in the universe's natural way of things causes it to break apart.

PS..saw a great movie the other night called "The Last Day"..check it out.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 10, 2005 5:47 AM

It is my understanding that many of the articles that are published in Science and Nature are not peer-reviewed. However, if their websites describe them as peer-reviewed, who am I to argue.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE HOCKEY STICK is demonstrably wrong
Quote:
You’ll see that the bulk of the warming occurred between the later decades of the 19th century up to about 1940.
Quote:
the bulk of the warming occurred prior to the bulk of the increase in carbon dioxide. This is a fact.

Since you insisted on your interpretation of that particular graph, I addressed your interpretation specifically and definitively. I noticed you have not repeated your claim that most global warming happened before 1940. Shall I conclude you concede the point?

(I know where you got that claim from, but you to applied that analysis to the wrong graph.)

No. Why should I concede it? The graph you posted clearly illustrated that the bulk of the warming occurred prior to the bulk of the increase in Carbon Dioxide. There’s no conceding that. That’s a fact. That you have no problem dismissing a fact clearly illustrated your sectarian position on this matter.

Whatever you think you might have demonstrated, the data remains inconclusive. If I didn’t respond to it, it is probably because I’ve grown tired of repeating obvious facts. I may not necessarily refute your interpretation of the data, but your interpretation of the data does not make it any more conclusive, nor does it make your insistence of the 'doomsday' scenario any more convincing.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED CURRENT CLIMATE MODELS with excellent agreement to measured temperatures

Because there aren’t any.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The model's ability to predict observed temperatures is one measure lending it support (or, a better way to put it, the climate model is not disproved). The global climate model is based on anthropogenic CO2-driven global warming.

If you ignore any data that doesn’t refute the models then yeah. The models don’t predicte measurements from satellite or balloon data. Global warming advocates jump with glee over the GCMs but only certain measurements are use to valid the models. My work is specifically with computer models, so I know something about validation, and nothing that I have seen in any climate research has convinced me that there is anything approaching a true validation of the kinds of models you’re talking about. The GCMs themselves are very limited in what and how they predict, and often weighted in favor of warming. And typically the data that are used to “validate” these models are the surface temperature measurements, which show an increase in temperature over the last century. What if they validated the models with the balloon measurements? Garbage in, Garbage out. If you build your models with the intent of predicting global warming, that's what they are likely to predict. Scientists refer to this as "tuning" the models, and it is a common criticism of GCMs.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I embedded one specific error in my postings. Perhaps you will respond to it.

You mean among the dozens of others. I haven’t responded to all the errors you’ve made in any of your posts; why should I start now?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 10, 2005 8:26 AM

ECOSTAR

I can't believe people are still discussing peer or non-peer reviewed articles in Nature and Science.

First, couching the discussion in terms of warming is inappropriate. The more precise term is climate change. The effects of climate change will differ from region to region. Some will benefit from changing weather patterns, many will not.

But, before you start arguing "facts" please provide evidence that disputes the evidence that supports claims about climate change accumulated in the IPCC reports. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports are put together by 2500 respected scientists from around the world. These scientists evaluate ALL of the peer reviewed materials on the subject, past and present. The scientific consensus is that Climate change is a reality we will have to confront, ready or not.

The IPCC report made the following observations.

Quote:
Examples of observed climatic changes

Increase in global average surface temperature of about 1°F in the 20th century

Decrease of snow cover and sea ice extent and the retreat of mountain glaciers in the latter half of the 20th century

Rise in global average sea level and the increase in ocean water temperatures

Likely increase in average precipitation over the middle and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, and over tropical land areas

Increase in the frequency of extreme precipitation events in some regions of the world

Examples of observed physical and ecological changes

Thawing of permafrost

Lengthening of the growing season in middle and high latitudes

Poleward and upward shift of plant and animal ranges

Decline of some plant and animal species

Earlier flowering of trees

Earlier emergence of insects

Earlier egg-laying in birds

Please provide a similarly intensive and detailed peer reviewed analysis that contradicts the work of these 2500 scientists.

Several on this thread have commented about Bush's opposition, but just because President Bush has doubts about climate change doesn't mean it isn't reality. In fact, the Bush administration is guilty of pressing executive agencies to distort scientific facts to serve political interests. For example, the White House, in June 2003, "demanded extensive changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To avoid issuing a scientifically indefensible report, EPA officials eviscerated the discussion of climate change and its consequences."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 11, 2005 12:15 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Wow, I get busy for a few weeks and looky what happens. So, I'll comment on just some of what I've had time to read.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
There is a difference between weather and climate. So, this point is rather moot given the topic at hand.

No, it is not moot. The same questions persist. Is 1 degree significant? Or is it statistical noise? I threw in an example in weather to demonstrate how all data have to be evaluated in context of a larger data set.

What happens in your backyard is not climate, it is weather. There is a difference. What goes on in your backyard has nothing to with the larger data set. ie local change does not equal global change.

That is, unless you can provide proof of it.

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:

How about just posting some sources here to benefit us all.

How about not dismissing the source I recommended based on someone's evaluation that it is at a "high school level"? Yes, it is written for the general public, but that doesn't invalidate its arguments. Again, if you don't like this source after you've read it, we can discuss why and I can address those concerns with other specific resources. This book is more technical than arguments say, at this website. http://www.open2.net/truthwillout/globalwarming/global_stott.htm

But since you insist, here are 2 generic technical arguments you must have seen already.
http://zwr.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
and
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

I will discard anything that is given for public discussion if I should so choose. And given that this discussion is soooo complicated that it must be dumbed down for the public, that threatens its accuracy and thus threatens its validility. So, I'll require more technical sources for clear reasons of accuracy. If you don't like that then that's your problem.

I look at those sources when I have time.

@Finn:
Regarding your "Hockey Stick" comment.

Read and learn:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114

Finn is clearly cherry picking his sources and data. Clearly, given any real look at the data, we have changed the composition of our enviornment, period. Looking at the data, there are clear indicators that we're responsible for it, period. Looking at the data there are anomalous regions of peaks and valleys, so what? Welcome to the realities of a chaotic system.

As Danny Blair (Univeristy of Winnipeg, Climate Change Research Professor) said in a recent talk he gave (paraphrase), "Those that don't acknowledge that this is happening have there heads in the sand."

Even 30 Helens agree that this is happening

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 11, 2005 1:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ecostar:
But, before you start arguing "facts" please provide evidence that disputes the evidence that supports claims about climate change accumulated in the IPCC reports. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports are put together by 2500 respected scientists from around the world. These scientists evaluate ALL of the peer reviewed materials on the subject, past and present. The scientific consensus is that Climate change is a reality we will have to confront, ready or not.

Well, I’ve not argued that the IPCC is necessarily wrong, although I don’t think they are necessarily right either. My argument is that the evidence is largely inconclusive, such that the proposed changes in climate cannot be quantified. And that is what your list of IPCC observations amount to. Most of what you listed is unquantifiable in any meaningful way where it applies to the ‘doomsday’ assumptions put forth by global warming advocates. There is always climate change. It changes constantly. Evidence suggests that the average global temperature has increased and decreased dramatically on many occasions, throughout the last 1000 years.

And the IPCC reports are not put together by 2500 scientists; they are put together by less then a hundred IPCC authors. The 2500 number refers to contributors and reviewers etc, many of whom had little to do with the actual content of the reports, and most have little to no experience in atmospheric physics.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
@Finn:
Regarding your "Hockey Stick" comment.

Read and learn:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=114

Finn is clearly cherry picking his sources and data. Clearly, given any real look at the data, we have changed the composition of our enviornment, period. Looking at the data, there are clear indicators that we're responsible for it, period. Looking at the data there are anomalous regions of peaks and valleys, so what? Welcome to the realities of a chaotic system.

Okay, the data that supports what you want to be true is good, period, but the data that doesn’t support what you want to be true, is dismissed as random noise in a chaotic system. You can’t get much more cherry picking then that.

But since I’ve already presented the counter argument to this, and knowing your propensity to belabor issues out of sheer obstinacy, I’ll simply point out that the link you referenced serves to support my contention. The data is inconclusive (period). And the only way to arrive at the conclusion that the earth is experiencing a uniquely anthropogenic catastrophic increase in global temperature is to dismiss half the evidence.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 11, 2005 1:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
What happens in your backyard is not climate, it is weather. There is a difference. What goes on in your backyard has nothing to with the larger data set. ie local change does not equal global change.

You persist on misinterpreting my weather analogy while refusing to address the point I made. Is 1 degree significant? Or is it just statistical noise?

Let me make it simple for you. Please just answer this question:

What is the standard deviation of this 1 degree temperature increase over the last 100 years?

Since you insist on not dumbing down the technical information, this question should not be difficult. Please stop your evasion if we are to have any meaningful exchange.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 11, 2005 1:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Okay, the data that supports what you want to be true is good, period, but the data that doesn’t support what you want to be true, is dismissed as random noise in a chaotic system. You can’t get much more cherry picking then that.

But since I’ve already presented the counter argument to this, and knowing your propensity to belabor issues out of sheer obstinacy, I’ll simply point out that the link you referenced serves to support my contention. The data is inconclusive (period). And the only way to arrive at the conclusion that the earth is experiencing a uniquely anthropogenic catastrophic increase in global temperature is to dismiss half the evidence.

Well said, thank you. And thanks for your thoughtful responses to my other posts too. I appreciate it.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 11, 2005 5:39 PM

One more thing. I think Richard Lindzen says it all much more eloquently than I could ever.

Quote:
Meteorologist Likens Fear of Global Warming to 'Religious Belief'
..."With respect to science, the assumption behind the [alarmist] consensus is science is the source of authority and that authority increases with the number of scientists [who agree.] But science is not primarily a source of authority. It is a particularly effective approach of inquiry and analysis. Skepticism is essential to science -- consensus is foreign," Lindzen said.

Read the rest of this opinion at:
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200
412%5CCUL20041202a.html

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 11, 2005 8:10 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

To answer the question "Is one degree significant?" the answer is YES.

Like any system that has a lot of noise, you get closer to the true mean when you take a lot of points and average them. One degree wouldn't be significant if it were betwen this morning and this afternoon in Buffalo, but one degree IS significant when averaged over the entire globe's surface over years. That averagin eliminates a lot of random "noise" and leaves just the long-term trends standing. The rise is surface temperature is greater than what would be expected by sheer chance over the last 10,000 years.

Does that answer your question?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 11, 2005 9:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
To answer the question "Is one degree significant?" the answer is YES....Like any system that has a lot of noise, you get closer to the true mean when you take a lot of points and average them....Does that answer your question?

Yes, thank you for addressing my question. But the answer is not yet to my satisfaction. That is, how do I know your answer "yes" is backed up by evidence and not just wishful thinking? As a scientist, I can't just take your word for it, right?

When scientists state that a result is significant in a research paper, they present their data (those "lots of points" you were talking about), the mathematical method they used to calculate statistical significance, the level of significance (p-value; how significant is it? a little bit or a lot?), and error calculations (standard deviations, confidence intervals, etc).

Since you have concluded that the 1 degree is significant, I assume you have seen some of the evidence to back it up. Could you give me a specific reference or link so I can see these calculations for myself? If you refer to something large like the IPCC report, could you pinpoint a page or section that addresses this question? Or, if you could simply help me find what the standard deviation is for those "lots of points" (temp measurements for the last 100 years), I would very much appreciate it. If I knew what the standard deviation was, I can "eyeball" for myself whether that 1 degree is significant.

So, the way to answer "Is 1 degree significant?" is to first answer "What is the standard deviation of temperatures measured in the last 100 years?" Thanks.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 12, 2005 10:22 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

It may take me some time to find the original paper because I saw it about 2 years ago, but I'll look for it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2005 6:03 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Okay, the data that supports what you want to be true is good, period, but the data that doesn’t support what you want to be true, is dismissed as random noise in a chaotic system. You can’t get much more cherry picking then that.

Ok, now you're just putting words in my mouth.

The tempurature has increased. This is undeniable. The trend is increasing. Thus any fluxuations are part of the chaotic mess that is our climate.

Now if the global mean tempurature was bouncing around with no trend, you'd have a point.

But. it doesn't, so you don't.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

But since I’ve already presented the counter argument to this, and knowing your propensity to belabor issues out of sheer obstinacy, I’ll simply point out that the link you referenced serves to support my contention. The data is inconclusive (period). And the only way to arrive at the conclusion that the earth is experiencing a uniquely anthropogenic catastrophic increase in global temperature is to dismiss half the evidence.

"The counter argument" LOL.

And actually, what the article stated was:
"
So let’s assume for argument’s sake that Mann, Bradley and Hughes made some terrible mistake in their statistical analysis, so we need to discard their results altogether. This wouldn’t change our picture of the last millennium (or anything else) very much:
"
You seem to have a terrible time with this so I'll just say it (among the others that I've seen do the same). Please, actually read the articles before posting a reply.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2005 6:26 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Ok, now you're just putting words in my mouth.

The tempurature has increased. This is undeniable. The trend is increasing. Thus any fluxuations are part of the chaotic mess that is our climate.

Now if the global mean tempurature was bouncing around with no trend, you'd have a point.

But. it doesn't, so you don't.

In fact, the global mean temperatures may very well be “bouncing around with no trend.” There is evidence that the global mean temperature has increased and decreased dramatically over the course of the last 1000 years, which would suggest that this current increase in temperature may actually be quite natural. Secondly, you assume that it is a “chaotic mess.” In fact, the data does suggest that most of the warming occurred prior to the bulk of increase in Carbon Dioxide, but it is convenient for you to dismiss this as random noise, because that doesn’t support your preconceptions.

See, I can use bold print too.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
You seem to have a terrible time with this so I'll just say it (among the others that I've seen do the same). Please, actually read the articles before posting a reply.

I read the article, thank you. And my response remains true. You don’t understand it, because you’re looking for a prop to support your prejudice, not a fair analysis of the data. There are many opinions on the issue of the effects of global warming, and no matter how hard you peddle certain opinions over others, or dismiss certain evidence, the data remains inconclusive. And until new conclusive evidence emerges to support one opinion over another, that is the end of the story.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, February 17, 2005 9:16 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
However, if their websites describe them as peer-reviewed, who am I to argue.

So you were wrong.

Quote:
The graph you posted clearly illustrated that the bulk of the warming occurred prior to the bulk of the increase in Carbon Dioxide.

Wrong again. You are applying the argument to the wrong graph.

Quote:
Because there aren’t any. (current accurate warming models)

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig12-7.htm This was in the post you replied to.

Quote:
The models don’t predicte measurements from satellite or balloon data.

Some models do. There are urls posted above that I don't feel like digging up.

Quote:
If you build your models with the intent of predicting global warming, that's what they are likely to predict. Scientists refer to this as "tuning" the models, and it is a common criticism of GCMs.

But the models are not built of fudge factors. They rest on factors that are indepedently determined in a lab or out in the field. I referred to this earlier with two specific examples.

Quote:
You mean among the dozens of others. I haven’t responded to all the errors you’ve made in any of your posts; why should I start now?

Be my guest. If you don't, you risk looking like all you have going is hot air (yes, pun intended).

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 18, 2005 3:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Canttakesky- It must have been the original article by Mann published in Nature, because the graph looks like the one that I remember.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 18, 2005 3:27 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
There is evidence that the global mean temperature has increased and decreased dramatically over the course of the last 1000 years, which would suggest that this current increase in temperature may actually be quite natural. Secondly, you assume that it is a “chaotic mess.” In fact, the data does suggest that most of the warming occurred prior to the bulk of increase in Carbon Dioxide, but it is convenient for you to dismiss this as random noise, because that doesn’t support your preconceptions.

Did you even LOOK at the graph? The current (past couple of decades) increase is clearly outside of the bounds, both in slope and magnitude, from anyhting else that has occurred on he chart. And most of the warming, since it ocurred in the past two decades, occurred AFTER the increase in CO2.

I'm sorry Finn, but anyone who is not fully ideologized would look at that chart.... even if it was just describing hot-dog sales at Daytona Beach... and ask about that rather dramatic uptick at the end.

Somewhere else, you said that it was your "understanding" that "most" of the articles in Science and Nature are not peer-reviewed. You only reveal the depth of your ignorance when you say things like that. You see, Science and Nature are the premiere English-language general scientific research magazines. Their policy is to print only GROUND BREAKING research in any field. They are extremely competitive, it is very difficult to get a paper in either of these publications, and they are ALL fully, extensively, exhaustively peer-reviewed.

Honestly, WHERE do you pull these ideas from?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 18, 2005 6:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So you were wrong.

Perhaps

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Wrong again. You are applying the argument to the wrong graph.

You keep saying that, perhaps to reassure yourself, but it’s just not true, and it doesn’t even make any sense. I didn’t apply an argument, I described the graph. The graph clearly demonstrates that the bulk of the warming occurred prior to the bulk of the Carbon Dioxide. This is a little fact that you hate desperately isn’t it?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
ttp:// www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig12-7.htm This was in the post you replied to.

Yes, I saw the graphs. Do any of them predict the atmospheric temperature? Probably not, eh? They predict the ground temperature because they may have been tuned to do just that. I can write a program to simulation any graph you give me, but that doesn’t mean my program is predicting anything except what I tell it to. Drawing a curve is one thing, predicting the climate is something else entirely.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Some models do. There are urls posted above that I don't feel like digging up.

I’m sure some do. The one’s that have been tuned to predict the atmospheric temperature probably do so very well. I wonder if the same set of inputs that predict the atmospheric temperature in one model will also predict the ground temperature in the same model. Probably not.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But the models are not built of fudge factors. They rest on factors that are indepedently determined in a lab or out in the field. I referred to this earlier with two specific examples.

I have no doubt that the physics that goes into the models is solid. But what initial factors are used to set up the calculations? What kinds of forcings and feedback is used in the model? The atmosphere is a complex beast. What I have seen of GCMs is that they generally do not account for all the data.

Abstract:
As a consequence of greenhouse forcing, all state-of-the-art general circulation models predict a positive temperature trend that is greater for the troposphere than the surface. This predicted positive trend increases in value with altitude until it reaches a maximum ratio with respect to the surface of as much as 1.5 to 2.0 at about 200–400 hPa. However, the temperature trends from several independent observational data sets show decreasing as well as mostly negative values. This disparity indicates that the three models examined here fail to account for the effects of greenhouse forcings.

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L13208, doi:10.1029/2004GL020103, 2004

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Be my guest. If you don't, you risk looking like all you have going is hot air (yes, pun intended).

Only in your imagination.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Did you even LOOK at the graph? The current (past couple of decades) increase is clearly outside of the bounds, both in slope and magnitude, from anyhting else that has occurred on he chart. And most of the warming, since it ocurred in the past two decades, occurred AFTER the increase in CO2.

How do you explain the drop in temperature right in the middle of increase in Carbon Dioxide? Noise? Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm sorry Finn, but anyone who is not fully ideologized would look at that chart.... even if it was just describing hot-dog sales at Daytona Beach... and ask about that rather dramatic uptick at the end.

Perhaps, but then when you told them that that "dramatic untick" at the end was because an increase in Carbon Dioxide and you superimposed that graph onto the Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide concentration chart, then they might ask why was the temperature increasing so fast back when the concentration of Carbon Dioxide was so low? If the increase in temperature is anthropogenic and caused by Carbon Dioxide why don’t the graphs match up? Two graphs showing an upward trend, just mean they both represent an upward trend, in order for them to be correlated the comparison needs to be a little closer then just that they are up-trending. But your response might be “That’s just noise in a chaotic system,” which is fine if they wanted to accept your opinion, but if they wanted to develop that opinion on their own, they might be little more critical then just dismissing it as noise.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Somewhere else, you said that it was your "understanding" that "most" of the articles in Science and Nature are not peer-reviewed. You only reveal the depth of your ignorance when you say things like that. You see, Science and Nature are the premiere English-language general scientific research magazines. Their policy is to print only GROUND BREAKING research in any field. They are extremely competitive, it is very difficult to get a paper in either of these publications, and they are ALL fully, extensively, exhaustively peer-reviewed.

They hardly print only ground breaking research, but they are very competitive and I think your characterization of them as “the premiere English-language general scientific research magazines” is probably accurate. But not all of the papers published in Nature or Science are peer-reviewed, much less “fully, extensively, exhaustively peer-reviewed.” In fact, I think about a third to over half of most articles published in Nature or Science are not peer-reviewed at all. The whole concept of peer-review is often taken a to certain degree of snobbery that I think is not only inappropriate but damaging. People get this idea that if a paper isn’t peer-reviewed, it isn’t worth reading, but many of the articles in Nature or Science are not peer-reviewed, yet Nature and Science remain the premiere general science journals. Peer-reviewed is often lauded, but it may be overrated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 18, 2005 6:52 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn, just because you say something twice doesn't make it so. Show me the data that supports the statement "In fact, I think about a third to over half of most articles published in Nature or Science are not peer-reviewed at all."

Here is the relevant portion of the editorial policy from Nature:

Quote:
The first hurdle for a newly submitted paper is that the full-time editorial staff consider it sufficiently interesting to be sent out for peer-review. .... The initial criteria for a paper to be sent for peer-review are that the results seem novel, arresting (unexpected or promising in terms of applications), and that the work seems broadly significant outside its particular field.

There are no exceptions in the policy.

It would be helpful if you stopped pulling statements out of who-knows-where, o'wise you risk taking yourself into irrelevance (if you haven't laready).

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 18, 2005 9:17 AM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

In fact, the global mean temperatures may very well be “bouncing around with no trend.” There is evidence that the global mean temperature has increased and decreased dramatically over the course of the last 1000 years, which would suggest that this current increase in temperature may actually be quite natural. Secondly, you assume that it is a “chaotic mess.” In fact, the data does suggest that most of the warming occurred prior to the bulk of increase in Carbon Dioxide, but it is convenient for you to dismiss this as random noise, because that doesn’t support your preconceptions.

Look at the graphs. There is clearly a line bouncing around a certain temp. then there is a spike at the end.
hxxp:// www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm

So, the past dictates a bound, but, recently there clearly is a break of that bound. The trend is now increaseing... sharply.

Also, provide evidence that this increase in temp was prior to increase in CO_2. Basically, just because you say something doesn't make it true.

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

I read the article, thank you. And my response remains true. You don’t understand it, because you’re looking for a prop to support your prejudice, not a fair analysis of the data. There are many opinions on the issue of the effects of global warming, and no matter how hard you peddle certain opinions over others, or dismiss certain evidence, the data remains inconclusive. And until new conclusive evidence emerges to support one opinion over another, that is the end of the story.

There never will be totally conclusive evidence for anything. We all thought that Newtonian mechanics was it until it broke down. Then along came SR, then GR. There are still problems with those and the Physicists are working on them.

All this physics is the basis for our technology that we happily use today. Does this mean that we throw out there conclusions and scoff at our tech because there is still problems with the theory? Well, do you like GPS? It works because of our understanding of SR. Shall we throw it out then?

The fact is, we have models that predict the climate that work. Are they perfect? Of course not, nothing is. Do they predict an increase in temp in the future while reproducing known temps? Yes, yes, and http://www.climateprediction.net/ currently predicts a increase between 2 - 11 degrees C.

Your insistence of requiring conclusive proof is a clear indicator that you have no clue how science actually works. You should work on that.

----
"Canada being mad at you is like Mr. Rogers throwing a brick through your window." -Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 18, 2005 12:03 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FROM THE AAAS ("Science") meeting, excerpted from the CNN article:

Global warming is real
CNN February 18, 2005; 0959 GMT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Studies looking at the oceans and melting Arctic ice leave no room for doubt that it is getting warmer, people are to blame, and the weather is going to suffer, climate experts have said.

New computer models that look at ocean temperatures instead of the atmosphere show the clearest signal yet that global warming is well under way, Tim Barnett of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography said.

His team used millions of temperature readings made by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to calculate steady ocean warming.

"The debate over whether or not there is a global warming signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.... "Could a climate system simply do this on its own? The answer is clearly no," Barnett said.

Ruth Curry of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution found that melting ice was changing the water cycle, which in turn affects ocean currents and, ultimately, climate.

"As the Earth warms, its water cycle is changing, being pushed out of kilter," she said. "Ice is in decline everywhere on the planet." A circulation system called the Ocean Conveyer Belt is in danger of shutting down, she said ... changes are already causing droughts in the U.S. west.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 18, 2005 3:03 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn, just because you say something twice doesn't make it so. Show me the data that supports the statement "In fact, I think about a third to over half of most articles published in Nature or Science are not peer-reviewed at all."

If you’ve ever read Nature you’d understand where I got this idea. I’m not sure what is so important about this, but if you’re going to through a fit if I don’t post a supporting statement here it is. Have fun, I’m done with this point. If you have any more questions about Nature or Science, I suggest you get a subscription.

“There are journals with a wide readership, which represent very few of the total number of journals but they are the most well-known. Some cover several fields of scientific research, such as Nature and Science, and there are also wide-spectrum clinical journals, such as The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine. Peer-reviewed papers are only part of their content: up to between one-third and two-thirds of each issue is made up of comments, news and features, which are not usually subject to peer review.”
“Peer Review and the Acceptance of New Scientific Ideas”, Sense About Science, page 12
www.senseaboutscience.org

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Look at the graphs. There is clearly a line bouncing around a certain temp. then there is a spike at the end.
hxxp:// www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/figspm-1.htm

So, the past dictates a bound, but, recently there clearly is a break of that bound. The trend is now increaseing... sharply.

According to this data, but other evidence contests it, and this has already been discussed.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Also, provide evidence that this increase in temp was prior to increase in CO_2. Basically, just because you say something doesn't make it true.

I’ve also already provided this evidence.

You’re a couple of chapters behind the discussion.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
There never will be totally conclusive evidence for anything. We all thought that Newtonian mechanics was it until it broke down. Then along came SR, then GR. There are still problems with those and the Physicists are working on them.

That’s a poor comparison. Newtonian physics is valid. It didn’t just break down one day and we all switched to Relativistic Mechanics. Newtonian theory remains the bedrock of mechanical engineering; it simply has been demonstrated to have limits to how it can be applied.

The question concerning Climate Change is whether or not the models are valid at all. You claim that “we have models that predict the climate that work,” but how do you know this, and what the hell does that mean? Some of rue’s omniscience has brushed off on you? I’ve never seen a GCM that predicts the climate well enough to make the kinds of conclusion that global warming advocates want to make. If you know of one, then I’d like to see the paper that inevitably would have been published, since it certainly would be groundbreaking science.

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Your insistence of requiring conclusive proof is a clear indicator that you have no clue how science actually works. You should work on that.

Ah, yes, of course. We shouldn’t concern ourselves with such petty things as the conclusiveness of the data. As the all-knowing SigmaNunki will tell us all what we should know and what we shouldn’t know. Science is not an authoritarian philosophy. It is completely dependent on the conclusiveness of its data for its conclusion.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"The debate over whether or not there is a global warming signal is now over, at least for rational people," he said.... "Could a climate system simply do this on its own? The answer is clearly no," Barnett said.

Well, that’s Barnett’s opinion according to CNN. I base my opinions on the data however, not on CNN’s portrayal of Barnett’s opinion.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 18, 2005 5:44 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SigmaNunki

Quote:
Your insistence of requiring conclusive proof is a clear indicator that you have no clue how science actually works. You should work on that.

I laughed out loud. Thanks.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 18, 2005 6:23 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"If you have any more questions about Nature or Science, I suggest you get a subscription... Peer-reviewed papers are only part of their content: up to between one-third and two-thirds of each issue is made up of comments, news and features, which are not usually subject to peer review.”

I was talking about research papers, which BTW is the topic of this discussion. YOU are talking about "content". Are you telling me that you can't tell the difference? If so, I sugggest that YOU subscribe to Nature and Science, since I already do.
-------------------
"The question concerning Climate Change is whether or not the models are valid at all."

ALL science is "models". Newtonian mechanics is a simply a mathematical model of large bodies moving at slow speeds.
-------------------
"I’ve never seen a GCM that predicts the climate well enough to make the kinds of conclusion that global warming advocates want to make."

Then I suggest that you subscribe to Science, Nature, Eos or other relevant magazines, or perhaps you should actually follow up some of the links and read them. You either haven't been looking, or you have been filtering your data rather severely.
-------------------
"We shouldn’t concern ourselves with such petty things as the conclusiveness of the data."

You, of course, have conclusive proof that climate is not warming, that CO2 has nothing to do with it, that we aren't going to face economic consequences, and that disrupting the SUV culture is tragic.

-----------------
"Well, that’s Barnett’s opinion according to CNN."

Try reading the paper, then come back and tell me about it. So far, everything you said is irrelevant.

Totally irrelevant.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 18, 2005 6:46 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
comments, news and features, ... are not usually subject to peer review

I don't expect the ads to be peer-reviewed either. But we are not talking about the comments, news, features, or ads. We are talking about research papers, those things that DO determine if a publication is a peer reviewed publication. Unless you want to talk about the ads. It would be silly, but we could do that.

Quote:
The graph clearly demonstrates that the bulk of the warming occurred prior to the bulk of the Carbon Dioxide.

You know, if the graph went back to the last ice age, I would agree with you and we'd have something to talk about. But the graph doesn't, and your description of it is wrong.
Skipping ahead,

Quote:
models predict a positive temperature trend that is greater for the troposphere than the surface. This predicted positive trend increases in value with altitude until it reaches a maximum ratio with respect to the surface of as much as 1.5 to 2.0 at about 200–400 hPa. However, the temperature trends from several independent observational data sets show decreasing as well as mostly negative values.

The issue with tropospheric temperatures is deeper than the models you like to pick on. It has to do with the actual measurements themselves. http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~mnew/teaching/Online_Articles/Christy_etal_M
SUv5_JAOT2003.pdf

Quote:
In version A, a simple bias removal was performed between the satellite records. In version B, a linear approximation for NOAA-11 diurnal drift, at the time only recently discovered, was applied (along with other minor adjustments.) In Christy (version C) further diurnal adjustments were applied to the other satellites, a filtering procedure employed, and error analyses were performed. A full description of the construction techniques applied to version D is found in CSB where adjustments for orbital decay and instrument calibration were applied. The satellite products described below will be referred to as version 5.0

This is just one attempt to take the actual temperature of the troposphere. There are many. Using the same data, people can find a distinct rise in temps that happens to be lower than surface data, or a tropo rise that is greater than surface. As I said many, many times before, the tropospheric data is equivocal. http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/9 says the same convincingly. Both radiosonde and satellite data have too much uncertainty to conclude anything significant about tropospheric temperatures.
OTOH, the GCM DOES predict surface warming, which we are undoubtedly seeing through multiple significant measurements.

And yes, feel free to point out my 'dozens' of mistakes. In fact, I encourage you to do so. It would give me the chance to answer your character assasination of me.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 18, 2005 6:53 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh Rue, don't you know that to Finn papers, ads, and editorials are all the same? As is troposphere and stratosphere?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, February 18, 2005 8:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
You, of course, have conclusive proof that climate is not warming, that CO2 has nothing to do with it, that we aren't going to face economic consequences, and that disrupting the SUV culture is tragic.

This statement is a lie. I never claimed to have proof either way.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Try reading the paper, then come back and tell me about it. So far, everything you said is irrelevant.

Totally irrelevant.

You mean the CNN article. CNN quotes someone as saying something about their opinion on climate change, and you think this makes everything I’ve said irrelevant? While we are elevating CNN articles to the level of peer-reviewed scientific journals perhaps we could get CNN’s ‘scientific’ opinion on GUTs or M-theory? I’ve been working on missile plume dynamics, perhaps CNN or maybe the New York Times could offer something in the way of a rigorous mathematical treatment of nozzle boundary layer transitions?

If you want me to read your article so bad, then get me a paper from a noted scientific journal that describes a GCM that completely models all greenhouse forcing, both negative and positive feedback and accurately predicts temperature on the surface, the oceans and the atmosphere. I will read it in earnest. I’m not an atmospheric scientist. If such models exist then it should be pretty easy to convince me, but CNN articles aren’t going to do the job in this arena.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You know, if the graph went back to the last ice age, I would agree with you and we'd have something to talk about. But the graph doesn't, and your description of it is wrong.
Skipping ahead,

That doesn’t make any sense. What difference does it make how far it goes back, the time period in question is between the late 19th century and the 1940s.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The issue with tropospheric temperatures is deeper than the models you like to pick on. It has to do with the actual measurements themselves. http://www.geog.ox.ac.uk/~mnew/teaching/Online_Articles/Christy_etal_M
SUv5_JAOT2003.pdf

Maybe. I’ll consider the article.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Both radiosonde and satellite data have too much uncertainty to conclude anything significant about tropospheric temperatures.

Maybe. But this leads us where? You’ve presented further evidence of the inconclusiveness of the data? Although I’m a little skeptical of this sudden need to recalculate the satellite data, because it reeks of a desire to find numbers that support the simulation and that’s not the direction we should be going. The models should predict the data, not the other way around. However, if the satellite data has been in error, and that can be shown, and the GCMs have been correct, then that could be the conclusive data that global warming advocates have been hoping for. But that’s not evident to me just yet.

Addendum:
I started reading the paper rue referenced and I realized this was one that I've read before. It talks about the uncertainty in the satellite data, but it doesn’t say what rue seems to think it says. It certainly claims that there is an uncertainty in the upper atmospheric measurements, but it doesn’t say that this uncertainty is more then what we see in the surface temperature measurements.

What rue seems to be saying is that since the surface temperature measurements seem to show an increase in mean global temperature and the satellite measurements have uncertainty, therefore the surface temperature should take precedent. Rue is comparing apples to oranges. She’s comparing the trend in the surface temperature measurements with the uncertainty in the satellite temperature measurements. There is uncertainty in both measurements. But the end result is that, according to Christy et al, there is little to no warming observed in the satellite data. And according to Douglas et al, that warming is still not predicted by the GCMs.

So rue and the other global warming advocates will have to wait a little longer for that conclusive evidence.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
OTOH, the GCM DOES predict surface warming, which we are undoubtedly seeing through multiple significant measurements.

I’m not so sure I share your confidence in the precision of the measurements, but certainly the models can predict surface temperatures.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And yes, feel free to point out my 'dozens' of mistakes. In fact, I encourage you to do so. It would give me the chance to answer your character assasination of me.

You started this game with the insinuations that I lied about my career from the beginning of this discussion. You started the hardball stuff. You can’t cry about it now. And I don’t think I’ve made any attempts to assassinate your character. I’ve told you what I thought, and you’ve done the same, although you could have left off the speculation about my career, since you really don’t know anything about it.

The truth is rue, that of all the people in this discussion that I have disagreed with I respect you the most. True, your opinions on global warming do seem very sectarian, but you don’t give me CNN articles when you should be giving scientific articles. That I respect.

But I still, don’t have the time to point out all your mistakes. I have to go to that non-scientific job where I don’t have any government clearance.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 6:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

"This statement is a lie. I never claimed to have proof either way."

Irrelevant. Please look up hypothesis testing.

"If you want me to read your article so bad, then get me a paper from a noted scientific journal that describes a GCM that completely models all greenhouse forcing, both negative and positive feedback and accurately predicts temperature on the surface, the oceans and the atmosphere."

When dealing with complex systems that inlcude many inputs (say epidemics) all models will have an error band. Models don't have to be complete or completely accurate to be useful. Apparently, you don't understand modeling. Because of your insistance on the impossible, this comment is irrelevant.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 7:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
"This statement is a lie. I never claimed to have proof either way."

Irrelevant. Please look up hypothesis testing.

Please look up lie.

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
When dealing with complex systems that inlcude many inputs (say epidemics) all models will have an error band. Models don't have to be complete or completely accurate to be useful. Apparently, you don't understand modeling. Because of your insistance on the impossible, this comment is irrelevant.

First I work on computer models. Second, I never said the models weren’t useful. I’m sure they have they many uses in a theoretical context, but before they can be used as a basis for establishing policy, they must be able to at least accurately predict the present, which they cannot. What’s impossible is demanding an incomplete model that doesn’t work right now to predict the future, and then claim that we are going to establish international policy and scientific theory based on a computer model that doesn’t work. Not only is that impossible, but it’s insane.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, February 19, 2005 9:23 AM