Another Reason Nat Gas is a Real Game-Changer: It Reduces Carbon Emissions by 300 Million Tons
I've written extensively over the last several years about how the shale gas revolution is transforming the U.S. economy in ways that would have been unimaginable a decade ago. Descriptions of this revolution include:
Mort Zuckerman: "The
good news is that the United States is at the center of a global
energy revolution. Our development of innovative shale-gas technology
offers the prospect of a huge bonanza of natural gas. It's the most positive event in the country's energy outlook in
50 years. This kind of seismic shift in the energy landscape is rare.
Robin West, chairman and CEO of PFC Energy:"This shale gale, I describe it as the energy equivalent of the Berlin Wall coming down. This is a big deal."
Scott Grannis: "It's the most dramatic change that is happening
beneath the surface of the U.S. economy today. As the rest of the world
struggles with oil prices that are very expensive both nominally and
in real terms, the U.S., thanks to new fracking technology, is enjoying
natural gas prices that are plunging. Even as crude oil prices have
surged over the past 13 years from $12/bbl to over $100, natural gas has dropped by an astounding 85% relative to crude oil. We've never seen anything like this.
"Natural gas will cut U.S. carbon emissions by at least 300 million tons in 2012 alone. How much is 300 million tons? It is about equal to the entire annual carbon emissions of Pennsylvania or an amount a little less than 1% of annual global emissions. It's a lot. No single change in the energy marketplace [MP: or public policy] in the last decade has yielded more carbon reductions than the displacement of coal generation by natural gas.
The fact that the rise of natural gas has avoided more carbon than any other single change in the marketplace is proving inconvenient to those who bash gas. The rise of gas is also slashing sulfur dioxide, mercury, soot and other emissions that cause hundreds of thousands of illnesses each year. Ignoring these facts betrays our health, environment, and economy."
The U.S. now enjoys an incredible energy price
advantage that not only is transforming industries, but
that should be an important source of growth for the entire economy. This could be the best reason to be bullish."
And we now have another reason to celebrate the game-changing effects of shale gas from John Hanger - it's good for the environment:
"Natural gas will cut U.S. carbon emissions by at least 300 million tons in 2012 alone. How much is 300 million tons? It is about equal to the entire annual carbon emissions of Pennsylvania or an amount a little less than 1% of annual global emissions. It's a lot. No single change in the energy marketplace [MP: or public policy] in the last decade has yielded more carbon reductions than the displacement of coal generation by natural gas.
The fact that the rise of natural gas has avoided more carbon than any other single change in the marketplace is proving inconvenient to those who bash gas. The rise of gas is also slashing sulfur dioxide, mercury, soot and other emissions that cause hundreds of thousands of illnesses each year. Ignoring these facts betrays our health, environment, and economy."
174 Comments:
Natural gas will really start benefitting the environment when virtually all natural gas combustion starts to be combined heat and power combustion.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Natural gas will start benefiting the environment AND the economy when one of the automakers starts to offer a model with an LNG power plant and fuel tank.
If they start it off by offering it to corporate customers -- police cruisers, for example -- it can pay for the ramp-up to bring LNG availability to the consumer level.
About CO2: Are we still harping on the global warming hoax?
they still have to do more to control wellhead emissions; methane is 25 times as potent a heat-trapping gas as CO2 over a 100 year time horizon, but 72 times as potent over 20 years...
Other than enviro-Nazis, and the bureaucrats who love them, who cares about this?
Other than enviro-Nazis, and the bureaucrats who love them, who cares about this?
Just who are these people who "bash gas"??
I am not aware of any.
"Natural gas will start benefiting the environment AND the economy when one of the automakers starts to offer a model with an LNG power plant and fuel tank".
DC (and probably many other large cities) have had natural gas buses for a couple of decades. Any fleet with convenient central fueling facilities (NYC taxis, USPS delivery vans, etc??) can be easily adopted.
a key question that is at issue is just how much is there and what happens when/if we run out IF we Start to rely on it for better air quality?
Could we go back to coal when it runs out?
would we?
or would, by that time, more breakthroughs in wind/solar would occur and we'd start phasing them in as nat gas supplies hit "peak" and started declining?
I'm somewhat convinced that the nat gas "boom" might be short(er).
For my own edification: I asked an equity research analyst yesterday about the profitability so far of the drillers in Bakken and Marcellus - according to him the Bakken drillers are sucking air, the Marcellus drillers are doing just fine.
I suspect that the religious nuts will change the subject, move the goal posts. Their argument now will be that by drilling deep into the earth and extracting gas/oil after creating "cracks" using fluids, we are changing the earth's crust and creating earthquakes - and creating hazards for the water table (if not now, in the future) - and that we are consuming more than we must - that we are polluting the water - that we are using too much energy transporting all that equipment - and so on and so on
What we MUST realize is that at the core, the problem is one of philosophy - the alarmists chose CO2 because it reflected energy production/consumption - and has allowed ordinary people from living where they want because they could afford to travel by themselves and not depend on others - These alarmists are pushing policy solutions that would force most everyone to live like hermits in small homes, be dependent on government for everything while they drive around in fancy cars and live in mansions and enjoy what the earth has to offer ...
The alarmism about Global Warming is NOT about Global Warming - but about the amazing transformation development and growth has brought to millions of people - the "poor" today live better than the "rich" of a few years ago and this shrinking of the distance between the "poor" and "rich" is too troubling and unacceptable to the self appointed elites.
What you'd better realize is that, due to the rapid decline of "fracked" wells, and the drillers rapidly deserting the gas plays for the liquid plays, we're probably on the cusp of a monumental spike in the price of nat gas. $15.00 to $20.00/kcuft is not beyond the pale.
like Rufus and others, I'm concerned with what happens when nat gas runs out ...how long it takes and whether it gradually ramps down or collapses.
300 years worth of Nat Gas would be not something to worry about.
but 3 years would.
the concern about nat gas "legs" is still there.
BloodyHell said...
Natural gas will start benefiting the environment AND the economy when one of the automakers starts to offer a model with an LNG power plant and fuel tank.
If they start it off by offering it to corporate customers -- police cruisers, for example -- it can pay for the ramp-up to bring LNG availability to the consumer level.
4/25/2012 12:11 AM
No,no,no,no,no.......no, completely unnesessary NG to diesel conversion is the way to go, the transportation infrastructure changes are negligible and the effort needed to convert everything that uses diesel is nonexiestant.
Imagine every tractor trailer, bus and POV that uses diesel being converted as soon as NG-diesel hits their tanks.
This NG fuel vehicle is a pipe dream why should anyone be forced buy a new car/truck/bus/tracktortrailer when the fuel can be converted?
http://m.smartplanet.com/blog/smart-takes/shell-spends-19-billion-to-convert-natural-gas-to-clean-diesel/6120
a key question that is at issue is just how much is there and what happens when/if we run out IF we Start to rely on it for better air quality?
Could we go back to coal when it runs out?
would we?
or would, by that time, more breakthroughs in wind/solar would occur and we'd start phasing them in as nat gas supplies hit "peak" and started declining?
You raise some good points, Larry.
I don't think it would be an easy conversion back to coal should the shale revolution be a bust. I'd also like to think that power plants and other companies would think long and hard before converting over to NGAS.
But let's assume we do go full tilt and covert to NGAS and this thing does last for a little while (let's say 50 years). When gas begins to run out, prices will rise, yes? When that happens, other sources (maybe solar, hydro, wind, biofuel, perpetual motion?) will become cheaper, comparatively, and we'll switch to those.
That's the story of progress, how the market allocates resources to where they are needed. We are always seeking the cheaper solution.
"The rise of gas is also slashing sulfur dioxide, mercury, soot and other emissions that cause hundreds of thousands of illnesses each year"...
Hyperbole much?!?!
"Natural gas will really start benefitting the environment..."...
Oh please!
"...methane is 25 times as potent a heat-trapping gas as CO2 over a 100 year time horizon, but 72 times as potent over 20 years"...
What do you care rjs, you'll be dead of old age before any 'supposed' problems develop?
What do you care rjs, you'll be dead of old age before any 'supposed' problems develop?
Some people are concerned about the well being of others, not just themselves.
I wonder if this emission claim takes into account the amount of energy required to extract and transport the gas/coal.
Hi,
"I don't think it would be an easy conversion back to coal should the shale revolution be a bust. I'd also like to think that power plants and other companies would think long and hard before converting over to NGAS."
I don't think any coal plants convert to natural gas in the first place. Instead, they build new natural gas plants, to replace the coal plants.
See "Natural Gas Conversions"
"Although some coal-fired power plants are reported to have been converted from coal to natural gas, a 2010 study by the Aspen Environmental Group for the American Public Power Association reports that such "conversions," when examined, are replacements rather than retrofits:[12]"
"The electricity industry can theoretically switch to natural gas either by retrofitting existing coal-fired units to burn natural gas or by closing the coal plants and building new gas-fired plants. Aspen’s research uncovers no instances of coal plant retrofits to natural gas and, in fact, virtually all of the public references to conversion of coal to natural gas or repowering turn out instead to be replacements. The reason is economics. Even the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), when it looked at this issue switching the Capitol Building power plant to natural gas, noted that not only was switching all U.S. coal-fired generation infeasible due the gas supply and infrastructure required, but that it would be more cost-effective to construct new gas-fired units than to retrofit existing coal-fired units to burn natural gas. Combined-cycle gas-fired generation costs roughly $1 million per MW, installed."
jon: "Some people are concerned about the well being of others, not just themselves"...
Yep, a truly stupid attitude if someone sincerely believes that nonsense...
Personally I think its yet another liberal strawman argument put forth by clueless and immature children...
A little education, consider the Simon/Ehrlich Bet...
Some people are concerned about the well being of others, not just themselves.
I care about the well-being of other people. I'm also a conservationist. That's precisely why I'm a free-market capitalist.
CO2 is NOT a pollutant! If anything, increasing CO2 will greatly enhance our agriculture and forestry sectors.
For example:
In addition, DeLucia and Thomas (2000) reported that the elevated CO2 increased rates of net photosynthesis by 50 to 160% in four subdominant hardwood species present in the forest understory. Moreover, for one species - sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) - the extra CO2 enhanced rates of net photosynthesis in sun and shade leaves by 166 and 68%, respectively, even when the trees were naturally subjected to summer seasonal stresses imposed by high temperature and low soil water availability. Consequently, after two years of atmospheric CO2 enrichment, total ecosystem net primary productivity in the CO2-enriched plots was 25% greater than that measured in control plots fumigated with ambient air.
A little education, consider the Simon/Ehrlich Bet...
Thanks for that link, Juandos. Interesting read.
The global warming theory has failed in all its predictions. Therefore, the theory is bunk. Temperatures stopped rising in 1998.
All the oil energy used for transportation is equal to the 2010 total production of natural gas. If we could double the production of NG, we could replace all the oil used for vehicles.
Futures market NG now costs 25 cents per gasoline gallon equivalent. Gasoline costs $3.15. That's a 12:1 ratio.
Regarding the bull crap claim that we haven't had warming since 1998, watch this video.
In regard to global warming, global temperatures have been essentially flat for the last decade due to decrease in sunspot activity. Henrik Svensmark in Denmark and CERN in Geneva have shown through their studies that galactic cosmic ray activity effects changes in cloud cover over the earth which causes most of the change in global temperatures. The close inverse correlation between sunspot and cosmic ray activity shows that Al Gore's hated sunspot activity can be used to compute global temperatures. My sunspot equation uses the peak sunspot number every 11 years to compute global temperatures. Using an estimated (by sunspot experts) for 2013, my equation shows the same computed global temperatures in 1999 and 2013. So far, this flat temperature trend is occurring. If sunspot activity remains low, there will be a slight decrease in global temperatures over the next decade. My studies show that CO2 and the other green house gases account for no more than 30% of temperature changes with sunspot activity accounting for the other 70%.
Larry and Rufus,
If you really believe prices are going to spike in natural gas, are you putting your money where your mouth is? One of the best ways to make money is to buy low and sell high. Are you buying as much natural gas as you can buy? If not, why not? If you're so confident prices are going to spike by 400%, why aren't you taking advantage?
Ken? is that you boy?
Ken.. I do not gamble unless I can afford to lose.
NO ONE who has half a brain should be "confident" about the current nat gas "boom".
Ken. I'm totally disappointed in you boy.
Larry,
Ken.. I do not gamble unless I can afford to lose.
By the way you talk, it's not a gamble, but a sure thing. After all, anyone talking about a natural gas boom only has half a brain.
Pretty much as I expected, though. You can talk the talk, but when it comes to walking the walk, all you've got is stuttering and back peddling. You don't actually believe what you're saying. You just like to yammer on, making confident predictions, but breathlessly scared of actually acting on those predictions.
William E. (Ed) Fox: My sunspot equation uses the peak sunspot number every 11 years to compute global temperatures. Using an estimated (by sunspot experts) for 2013, my equation shows the same computed global temperatures in 1999 and 2013.
Just curious. Where is your work on the relationship between sunspots and global temperatures published?
"Regarding the bull crap claim that we haven't had warming since 1998, watch this video"...
OMG! What inane baloney!!
Is that you Michael Mann hiding behind that "jon" moniker?
You mean Michael Moore!
You mean Michael Moore!
"You mean Michael Moore!"...
Not in this particular case abir but I do get your meaning...:-)
Other than scared politicians and idiot greens nobody cares about CO2 emissions. What matters for gas producers and investors are cash flows and profits. On both of these measures shale gas fails miserably. That is not the foundation on which game changers are built.
In reply to Zachriel, I haven't been able to get my paper entitled "The Effect of Sunspot Activity on Global Temperatures" published. For more than a decade there has been a ban by the major scientific organizations on publishing anything that questions the "belief" that CO2 and the other greenhouse gases are major factors in changing global temperatures. The scientific magazine Nature in England did break this ban in August, 2011 by publishing the results of the CLOUD study by the European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN.
However, even with no ban I would have difficulty getting my paper accepted since I am not a climate scientist but only a 93-yr. old retired hydrologist who clings to the apparently outdated notion that a theory is validated by actual data not by mere belief and fictitious adjustments.
"I haven't been able to get my paper entitled "The Effect of Sunspot Activity on Global Temperatures" published. For more than a decade there has been a ban by the major scientific organizations on publishing anything that questions the "belief" that CO2 and the other greenhouse gases are major factors in changing global temperatures"...
Hmmm, I wonder if Anthony Watts over at Watts Up With That might have a few suggestions for you William E. (Ed) Fox?
"or would, by that time, more breakthroughs in wind/solar would occur and we'd start phasing them in as nat gas supplies hit "peak" and started declining?"
When you say "more breakthroughs" in wind and solar, what original "breakthroughs are you referring to? You're familiar with the physical limits, right?
we're familiar ... but is there pretty solid agreement as to what they are?
what is the theoretical max efficiency of solar? wind?
is there agreement on that?
there is no argument from me on the energy density of fossil fuels.
"green" energy is not dense energy and never will be....but it's ubiquitous and abundant...on the surface of the earth.
we're familiar ... but is there pretty solid agreement as to what they are?
what is the theoretical max efficiency of solar? wind?
is there agreement on that?
The only agreement is that you have no clue what you are talking about. Solar and wind power have been a huge failure. They never would have destroyed much capital if foolish governments did not choose to subsidize and protect the industry.
a failed technology that will never work?
William E. (Ed) Fox: "However, even with no ban I would have difficulty getting my paper accepted since I am not a climate scientist but only a 93-yr. old retired hydrologist who clings to the apparently outdated notion that a theory is validated by actual data not by mere belief and fictitious adjustments."
If it's any comfort, not many "climate scientists" are climate scientists either.
"we're familiar ... but is there pretty solid agreement as to what they are?"
You hit enter before thinking. If you were "familiar", you wouldn't have asked that question.
"what is the theoretical max efficiency of solar? wind?"
There is a maximum amount of sunlight available at the surface of the Earth. Depending on your latitude, it varies. You can find this for yourself, but 1000W/m2 is commonly used.
In other words, at 100% efficiency, which isn't possible, you could collect 1KW/m2. Current best tchnology is less than 40%, so any "breakthroughs" you can imagine are at best a possible doubling.
When calculating area needed, be sure to include support structures, maintenance roads and service area, distribution networks, etc.
Wind is merely the force of a mass of air at a particular velocity. The ability to convert this to useable mechanical energy has been well known for centuries. More recently that mechanical energy has been converted to electricity.
As with solar, you will also find some practical limits to how much air can be slowed in a given area.
Besure to include maintenance and distribution footage in your estimates.
Again, you can look this up for yourself.
There aren't too many "breakthroughs" imaginable in either of these technologies.
thanks for the numbers...
is there enough "footprint" for solar - whatever the max efficiency is - to conceivable generate the total power used ?
I believe I once read something that said an area the size of Rhode Island would be sufficient even at miserable efficiency levels.
Of course, electricity might cost a fifty cents/a buck a kilowatt....
I fully expect wind/solar to become more and more part of the power grid... in the next 100-400 years.
Some day they'll look back at us like we look back at folks burning whale oil for lights.
Larry: No
the "poor" today live better than the "rich" of a few years ago and this shrinking of the distance between the "poor" and "rich"
==================================
second part does not follow from the first. If the rich are getting rich many times faster than the poor are getting rich, then the Distance between them is not shrinking.
Solar and wind power have been a huge failure.
================================
Nevertheless, solar power now costs 1/100th of what it cost in 1975.
Why is it that you believe in the infinite resource of human ingenuity except in this case?
Ahh, but there are physical limits to solar efficiency, you say.
You mean like oil extraction?
My sunspot equation uses the peak sunspot number every 11 years to compute global temperatures.
=================================
Another one of those models we all know are wrong and inacurate?
How about if we just agree on a way to measure global temperatures, and go with that?
William, you wrote:
For more than a decade there has been a ban by the major scientific organizations on publishing anything that questions the "belief" that CO2 and the other greenhouse gases are major factors in changing global temperatures.
Henrik Svensmark continues to publish. Is what you argue similar to what has been argued by Eilig Friis-Christensen?
Henrik Svensmark continues to publish. Is what you argue similar to what has been argued by Eilig Friis-Christensen?
It takes them months to get papers published even when the reviewers have nothing of substance to question about the papers. Contrast that to all of the crappy pro-AGW papers that are exposed to be wrong just a few hours after they were published.
No matter how you might want to spin it, the evidence shows a clear bias.
Science is biased against the non-consensus view in every subject. That's the nature of science.
...then by cracky .. they need their OWN journal, eh?
:-)
VangelV: It takes them months to get papers published even when the reviewers have nothing of substance to question about the papers.
A lot of times they have nothing of substance to say, rehashes being most common. In any case, months is not atypical for publication.
VangelV: Contrast that to all of the crappy pro-AGW papers that are exposed to be wrong just a few hours after they were published.
Publication is just the start of the scientific discussion. Did you have an example in mind?
VangelV: No matter how you might want to spin it, the evidence shows a clear bias.
Of course there's a bias. It's hard to get flat-earth papers published too!
...then by cracky .. they need their OWN journal, eh?
No. That would be like the alarmists who always have Nature that will accept crappy papers with the minimal pal review.
A lot of times they have nothing of substance to say, rehashes being most common. In any case, months is not atypical for publication.
Nothing to say? Their theory explains temperature trend changes at all time frames without the need for plug in factors (like CO2 does). It predicted a glaciation period that was not known previously and allowed an alternate method of confirming the rotation of the solar system around the galactic core. They had a great deal to say and should be receiving a Nobel Prize over the next decade.
Publication is just the start of the scientific discussion. Did you have an example in mind?
The Wahl and Ammann paper defending MBH98/MBH99 comes to mind. So does the Steig paper on the imagined warming across Antarctica. It only took a few hours for MacIntyre to find that Steig had mixed up the Harry/Gill station data and figured out the statistical tricks that manufactured warming where there was no evidence of any. The screwup with the Briffa Yamal/Polar Urals data cherry picking is also an appropriate example. Whenever the team was exposed to have screwed up they abandoned the old indefensible papers and simply published a new one with the same errors or even new ones. The critics would be denied a response for months and by the time they could publish the team simply moved on to another bad paper that it can point to even as it admitted that the previous papers were not relevant.
What gets to me is the blatant manipulation surrounding the M08 paper that used the upside-down Tiljander sediments
"Why is it that you believe in the infinite resource of human ingenuity except in this case?"
The infinite resource of human ingenuity doesn't include pursuing the same non economic ideas that have never been possible without taxpayer subsidy, aren't likely to ever become so, and one of which was abandoned hundreds of years ago in favor of steam.
Human ingenuity finds ways to make things better and cheaper, thus making our lives better, not pursuing ideas that don't make sense.
"How about if we just agree on a way to measure global temperatures, and go with that?"
The people in charge of doing just that have failed, so far, to do so, and what is the value to such a meaningless statistic in any case?
You can't tease meaning from an average temperature like you can an average height or an average commute time.
"Some day they'll look back at us like we look back at folks burning whale oil for lights."
It's worse than that. Whale oil was replaced by something completely unexpected, that was developed without taxpayer subsidies, and it coat a lot LESS then the existing fuel, not MORE.
J. D. Rockefeller almost single-handedly destroyed the entire New England whaling industry and saved more whales than Greenpeace can ever hope to save.
What do you suppose all those whalers did when their jobs disappeared? I'll bet they didn't get 99 weeks of unemployment compensation while getting free retraining assistance to prepare them for new jobs.
We also know that no major whaling companies were saved by taxpayer bailouts to the detriment of bondholders, and given to the whalers union.
"Ahh, but there are physical limits to solar efficiency, you say.
You mean like oil extraction?"
No, nothing like that, as you should know, being a former chief research scientist.
"Regarding the bull crap claim that we haven't had warming since 1998, watch this video."
You need some new material, Jon. That one's tired.
some sailors were treated well...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Act_for_the_relief_of_sick_and_disabled_seamen
"some sailors were treated well..."
[link]
And what, exactly, are you responding to, as that doesn't fit any current subject of discussion.
" What do you suppose all those whalers did when their jobs disappeared? I'll bet they didn't get 99 weeks of unemployment compensation while getting free retraining assistance to prepare them for new jobs"
tongue in cheek whalers? seamen?
And what, exactly, are you responding to, as that doesn't fit any current subject of discussion.
He is an ignorant and lonely fool with a reading comprehension problem. Or he is playing games with people.
VangelV: Nothing to say?Their theory explains temperature trend changes at all time frames without the need for plug in factors (like CO2 does).
Republishing the same theory isn't saying something new. You have to garner new evidence in support of the theory, extend the theory to suggest new observational tests, or publish about related topics.
VangelV: The Wahl and Ammann paper defending MBH98/MBH99 comes to mind.
What about it? It seems like there was the normal discourse.
Mann et al. 1998
McIntyre & McKitrick 2003
Storch & Zorita, 2005
McIntyre & McKitrick 2005
Wahl & Ammann 2007
Mann's results have been largely confirmed multiple times by independent analyses and independent observations. McIntyre & McKitrick just seem to nip around the edges, which may have some utility. Not sure your point.
To contribute to the original post, if natural gas emissions are controlled throughout the pipeline, it has far fewer deleterious effects, on air quality and on climate. Natural gas will help in the interim as the world transitions to greener sources of energy.
I find it interesting that the power companies themselves are transitioning from coal to natgas.
do they know something that Van does not or the other way around?
Republishing the same theory isn't saying something new. You have to garner new evidence in support of the theory, extend the theory to suggest new observational tests, or publish about related topics.
I think that you are either ignorant of straight out lying. What Svensmark has published IS SOMETHING NEW. He proposed a mechanism in which solar activity, not iridescence, is controlling the cosmic ray flux in the lower atmosphere. This is important because, according to the theory, the CRF is responsible for CCN formation and low cloud cover, particularly over the oceans.
Because the solar system rotates through the galaxy at a rate different than the galactic arms the rotation allows us to make predictions of icehouse conditions regardless of CO2 concentrations. Svensmark's theory fits perfectly with the icehouse conditions but predicted one such condition during the Jurassic to Early Cretaceous, a period believed to have been warm throughout. Fortunately, ice rafting data found the evidence for that unknown period of glaciation after the theory had been proposed. But the journals kept dithering and stalled until the AGW crowd could come up with some way to attack Svensmark even if they had to attack strawmen or manipulate data to do it.
What about it? It seems like there was the normal discourse.
Mann et al. 1998
McIntyre & McKitrick 2003
Storch & Zorita, 2005
McIntyre & McKitrick 2005
Wahl & Ammann 2007
It was hardly normal. For Wahl & Ammann 200X to have been considered for the IPCC report it would have had to been published before the December 16, 2005. But the paper was not ready. The team managed to give it an Provisionally Accepted designation on December 12, 2005. (That is not what the journals usually do because a paper is either accepted or not accepted at a certain date.) On March 16, 2006, GRL stated that the paper was rejected because there was nothing new or significant in the paper. You can read about the tricks here.
Mann's results have been largely confirmed multiple times by independent analyses and independent observations. McIntyre & McKitrick just seem to nip around the edges, which may have some utility. Not sure your point.
Actually, they were not. Mann's results included stripbark proxies, which are not supposed to be used because they respond to CO2 fertilization, changes in precipitation, and temperature, not just temperature. The r^2 values were too low to be significant. Even Ammann found that r^2 for the AD1400 step was 0.018. Of course the bigger problem was the methodology. It turns even random data into hockey sticks because it uses improper centring. Once that is corrected the hockey stick goes away and the MWP and LIA periods that Mann tried to hide reappear in the data.
I find it interesting that the power companies themselves are transitioning from coal to natgas.
do they know something that Van does not or the other way around?
The regulations force them to shut down older coal plants. They can't get approval for new coal plants. So you get more nat gas plus mandated renewable energy. Given the fact that the companies can pass on the higher costs they don't have a problem. The consumers do.
Zachriel: Republishing the same theory isn't saying something new. You have to garner new evidence in support of the theory, extend the theory to suggest new observational tests, or publish about related topics.
VangelV: I think that you are either ignorant of straight out lying. What Svensmark has published IS SOMETHING NEW.
Svensmark published his theory in 1998. The discussion concerned not being able to publish. He has since published a paper in 2007 concerning experiment evidence of ionic nucleation.
Whether cosmic rays are found to be important in paleoclimatology, they do not correlate well with recent decades.
Krivova & Solanski, Solar Total and Spectral Irradiance: Modelling and a Possiblel Impact on Climate, Max-Planck-Institut für Aeronomie 2003.
Svensmark published his theory in 1998. The discussion concerned not being able to publish. He has since published a paper in 2007 concerning experiment evidence of ionic nucleation.
It takes Svensmark years to publish a paper that proposes a novel theory that is supported by a great deal of evidence from other fields. On the other hand, the 'team' can get papers that have nothing to say, are self-contradictory, and use failed methodology by gaining provisional acceptance so that they can be considered by the IPCC's ARs.
Svensmark deserves a Nobel Prize in physics and chemistry. Mann should go to jail for fraud and theft.
Whether cosmic rays are found to be important in paleoclimatology, they do not correlate well with recent decades.
Krivova & Solanski, Solar Total and Spectral Irradiance: Modelling and a Possiblel Impact on Climate, Max-Planck-Institut für Aeronomie 2003.
Actually, as the hide the decline trick showed, it was CO2 that does not correlate very well since the 1960s. Solaniki screwed up because he did not deal with the Svensmark claims but his misinterpretation of the theory. Svensmark is talking about solar activity that controls the flux of cosmic rays in the lower atmosphere. Solaniki is looking at variations in the solar total and
spectral irradiance. This was the same trick used by Lockwood but that also failed.
Since the publication of the paper cited we have seen empirical evidence that a change in CRF can impact the formation of CCNs and prove that the mechanism suggested by Svensmark has a great deal of merit. As subsequent empirical data comes in we will get a better idea as to how the process works. And then there is the observation that cosmic ray decreases affect atmospheric aerosols and clouds, a very inconvenient finding for the 'team.' No wonder they are trying to keep the science out of the journals. No self respecting scientist will accept the AGW proponents models when the empirical evidence shows that the reality is different.
VangelV: It takes Svensmark years to publish a paper that proposes a novel theory that is supported by a great deal of evidence from other fields.
Svensmark has published lots of papers. Not sure why you think he is having troubles getting published.
In any case, while troposphere and surface temperatures have trended up over the past few decades, measured cosmic ray counts have remained relatively stable. While cosmic rays may very well be important over long time scales, they do not apparently explain the current warming trend.
Svensmark has published lots of papers. Not sure why you think he is having troubles getting published.
I showed you just how easy it was to ensure that AW2007 get published even after it was shown that the paper was not dealing with anything new and supported the very M&M paper it was supposed to refute. Svensmark was not given provisional acceptance and had his paper rushed through. It was rejected without any actual criticism about the work that was done. One of the most important papers in the past half century was stalled by the alarmists who could not see the AGW theory take yet another hit from a new theory that had empirical observations to support it.
In any case, while troposphere and surface temperatures have trended up over the past few decades, measured cosmic ray counts have remained relatively stable. While cosmic rays may very well be important over long time scales, they do not apparently explain the current warming trend.
What warming trend? There has been no statistical warming for the past 15 years. In 2007 Hansen admitted that the US data showed that the 1930s were warmer than the 1990s. Global sea ice has been bouncing around the mean for the past 30 years. There is no warming unless you are talking about comparing the present temperatures to the Little Ice Age. But that warming trend began around four centuries ago, long before human emissions of CO2 became significant. And if you look at the data you still find that we are not any warmer than the Medieval Warm Period, Roman Warm Period, Minoan Warm Period, or Holocene Optimum. None of those are attributed to human emissions of CO2. Neither is the current period.
VangelV: What warming trend?
That's funny. You can look right at it and see its trending up. Nearly every point on the left side of the graph is below average, while nearly every point on the right side of the graph is above average. It's even more obvious when we remove ENSO, volcanic aerosols, and solar variations. See,
Foster & Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979–2010, Environmental Research Letters 2011.
http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/6/4/044022/Full/erl408263f5_online.jpg
That's funny. You can look right at it and see its trending up. Nearly every point on the left side of the graph is below average, while nearly every point on the right side of the graph is above average. It's even more obvious when we remove ENSO, volcanic aerosols, and solar variations.
Actually, what you see is a cyclical pattern that has us heading down during the next few years. Even the alarmists are bailing by talking about the AMO/PDO changes causing no increase for the next decade or two. And as I pointed out, even Hansen admitted that the US was warmer in the 1930s than the 1990s. How could that happen if CO2 were driving temperatures higher?
And if the AGW theory were sound why aren't the oceans warming as they predicted? I found it fascinating that the warmers are now writing papers in which they show that if the IPCC forcing assumptions are correct the feedback is negative. That does away with the dire scenarios that they have been pushing but have not materialized. (Which indicates why the public seems to be suffering from a Cry Wolf overload.)
Note that not too long ago the alarmists were telling us that warming was causing all that sea ice to melt. The problem is that global sea ice has been bounding around the mean for most of the satellite period and is now above the mean. Even the Arctic ice is at the mean. Sadly, we are not warming and have not warmed since the 1930s or the late 1990s. To see a warming trend you have to pick a starting point like 1950 or 1850. And it always helps to add an artificial warming signal to the data when you can get away with it.
geeze Van....
Is this Wrong?
geeze Van....
Is this Wrong?
It certainly does not agree with the direct satellite measurements which have been conveniently ignored by the warmers over the past few months.
And if you guys are so worried about GLOBAL warming why is it that you don't look at GLOBAL ICE COVERAGE? Could it have anything to do with the fact that the data shows absolutely nothing unusual as it chops around the mean? That is clearly inconvenient for the narrative. And by the way, so are the discoveries that you guys were lying about penguin and polar bear populations. Both are booming. That either means that it is not warming as much as you keep claiming or that warming is not harmful to polar bears and penguins. Or both.
We have seen the total collapse of the AGW movement as the data keeps contradicting the claims made by the UN bureaucrats and 'scientists'. With more and more links between the green industry, green groups, and the IPCC being discovered every day it is hard to keep fooling a public that remembers all those dire predictions that never seemed to play out. You fools cried wolf far too many times. Nobody is paying much attention now.
it's NOAA data.... is it wrong?
who is producing the satellite measurements that you cite?
I don't think the data is "contradicting" at all.. at least not from what NOAA is saying.
who is contradicting NOAA?
it's NOAA data.... is it wrong?
The measurements are what they are. They show absolutely no warming trend for the US since the 1930s. The 1930s were hot and temperatures fell until the mid 1970s (the ice age scare) only to rise after the PDO went into a positive phase. That went on until the latter half of the 1990s (the warming scare) and has now turned. All of the warming trend comes from a warming signal added by the adjustments. The same thing was done in NZ and when the government was challenged to justify turning a flat trend into a 1C per century rise it could not.
The warming comes from the computer algorithms and adjustments not from the temperature stations. Yes, there is a human element that is real but that is due to land use changes, not CO2 emissions. Cities are a LOT warmer than the surrounding countryside because all of that metal and concrete helps store heat that is released and makes nights hotter. But higher highs are not a big problem if you think about it which is why the whole global average figure is bunk. You can have a hot year just by having a normal summer but an early spring, late fall, or a mild winter. You don't need to see higher highs to have a report of a hot year even though that is what people think about when they look at the data.
at the link:
" The sea ice area for the Arctic shows near-record minimums since 2002. The maps below show the areas for September (shaded) relative to the median extent (purple line) based on the period 1980-2000. The recent years represent a unique event because they show a year-to-year persistence of minimum ice extents (graph below). Sea ice area is now significantly below the level of the 1980s and earlier."
aren't these actual measurements?
clearly the battle over whether or not AGW has been won by the skeptics....
but I thought most of them agreed that warming was occurring but disagreed as to the reasons.
no?
" The sea ice area for the Arctic shows near-record minimums since 2002. The maps below show the areas for September (shaded) relative to the median extent (purple line) based on the period 1980-2000. The recent years represent a unique event because they show a year-to-year persistence of minimum ice extents (graph below). Sea ice area is now significantly below the level of the 1980s and earlier."
aren't these actual measurements?
Does this look like a record low cover to you?
How about this?
Or this?
And why not look at the GLOBAL ice cover? Wouldn't the effect of global warming be global?
I love the way that the AGW proponents have used a few tricks and local phenomenon to fool people who chose not to think for themselves. Those phenomenon are cyclical in nature and each time we have seen the Arctic is melting claim (and we have seen it many times in the past century) the ice has bounced back nicely. Sadly, it is doing that again and the cold weather is making life difficult for those in the north.
clearly the battle over whether or not AGW has been won by the skeptics....
but I thought most of them agreed that warming was occurring but disagreed as to the reasons.
The warming argument depends on your starting point. If you are an American and choose the 1930s as your starting point you have seen a large amount of cooling followed by a recovery. But the actual data showed that the 1930s were warmer than the 1990s, a very inconvenient fact for the CO2 crowd. And yes, most people will experience warming. But that is because of the urbanization trend, which drives local temperatures higher. If my ten-year-old son can measure a 8C difference between the city core and the rural area around it why can't the IPCC figure out that as the cities expand outward their stations will register higher temperatures that are caused by land use changes, not CO2?
And since when are warmer temperatures a bad thing? Longer growing seasons provide more biomass and more nourishment all the way up the food chain. Most plants on this planet evolved when CO2 concentrations were significantly higher. Greenhouse operators pay to increase the CO2 content in their operations because that increases yield. Exposure to excess cold brings on a lot higher mortality rates among healthy individuals than exposure to heat. Old people don't retire to Scotland but to Portugal, Malta, or Florida. They do it because the warm is preferable to the cold.
It is time for this idiocy to end once and for all. Get rid of the IPCC and stop funding the green industry while you are screwing taxpayers and consumers.
VangelV: Actually, what you see is a cyclical pattern that has us heading down during the next few years.
You can see what you want to see, and you can fit any curve to any set of data, but that doesn't make it a good fit. There's no cyclical trend in the data you provided. It's very clear there's an upward trend to the data. If we adjust for volcanism, ENSO and solar variations, it's even more clear.
VangelV: And as I pointed out, even Hansen admitted that the US was warmer in the 1930s than the 1990s. How could that happen if CO2 were driving temperatures higher?
Because the U.S. is only 2% of the Earth's surface, and the rise in temperature is not uniform across the globe.
VangelV: And if the AGW theory were sound why aren't the oceans warming as they predicted?
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100121_globalstats.html
VangelV: The problem is that global sea ice has been bounding around the mean for most of the satellite period and is now above the mean.
You're not very good at reading trends. It's clearly downward on the chart you provided.
VangelV: Even the Arctic ice is at the mean.
Again, you're seeing what you want to see. The maximum ice extent is later in the season than previous years, but still less than the mean maximum extent, which normally occurs several weeks earlier.
This comment has been removed by the author.
the Colorado folks appear to be affiliated with NOAA...
" NSIDC is part of the University of Colorado Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), and is affiliated with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Geophysical Data Center through a cooperative agreement."
are they using the SAME data NOAA is collecting and using but interpreting it differently or are they collecting data themselves?
the charts you show seem to contradict the NOAA charts so I'm trying to understand if they both are using the same data or different data...
"
Larry G: but I thought most of them agreed that warming was occurring but disagreed as to the reasons.
It's typical of so-called skeptics to argue different (often mutually exclusive) positions... It's not warming, the warming isn't due to human causes, the human caused warming isn't detrimental, it's not warming, etc.
As for maximum ice extent, please read our comments above.
You can see what you want to see, and you can fit any curve to any set of data, but that doesn't make it a good fit. There's no cyclical trend in the data you provided. It's very clear there's an upward trend to the data. If we adjust for volcanism, ENSO and solar variations, it's even more clear.
First of all, a linear fit does work very well.
US Mean temperature versus the AMO and PDO ocean cycles
Sun and Ocean cycles vs US temperatures
Because the U.S. is only 2% of the Earth's surface, and the rise in temperature is not uniform across the globe.
But that is the problem. It did not happen in Australia. It did not happen in New Zealand. It did not happen in the Scandinavian countries. In all instances the raw data shows nothing material but in all instances the data was 'adjusted' to produce a warming trend. That 'value-added' data set was then used to create a global reconstruction and most of the warming came from areas where station data was ignored and computer algorithms were used to calculated an imputed reading. That is not science. That is like checking your BMI by weighing your sister and trying to use probability functions to come up with a number. That too is not science.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100121_globalstats.html
You are looking at one month and comparing with periods for which there are no comprehensive records. The 'team' wrote a paper in 2005 in which they predicted a monotonic increase in heat content of the oceans. The driver would be the radiative imbalance created by CO2 emissions. The problem for the team has been the ARGO data. The data showed that the prediction failed miserably and the team has been searching for the missing heat ever since. I laughed at the Levitus paper that just came out. While the team was touting the findings the paper actually implied that the IPCC feedback assumptions were wrong and that Lindzen is right. This means that a doubling of CO2 would not produce a material warming effect. And that there is no need to worry.
Which is why the AGW issue is not considered significant by voters and is being shunned by politicians in fear of a backlash.
You're not very good at reading trends. It's clearly downward on the chart you provided.
That is the point dumdum. There is no trend. For the past 30 years we have seen global ice cover bounce around on both sides of the mean. If there were a trend the data point would be below the mean.
Again, you're seeing what you want to see. The maximum ice extent is later in the season than previous years, but still less than the mean maximum extent, which normally occurs several weeks earlier.
I see what is there. The ice cover today is around the mean. End of story. You are assuming that there is no cyclical component that drives ice cover. Having read Hansen, Polyakov, and others I know that this is not true. Hansen's own 1987 paper had arctic temperatures in the 1940s higher than current station measurements. The Northwest passage was navigated about a century ago when a wooden ship found an ice free route. The UK and US navies have surfaced in open sea near the North Pole in the previous periods at the same calender point that shows ice cover today.
Your ignorance of the temperature in the region is your problem, not mine. And if you are that ignorant why are you accepting the word of people who know but are hiding the facts from you?
It's typical of so-called skeptics to argue different (often mutually exclusive) positions... It's not warming, the warming isn't due to human causes, the human caused warming isn't detrimental, it's not warming, etc.
Actually, the skeptics are consistent. They point to the fact that we do not live in a particularly warm period. In fact, it has been much warmer for most of the past 10,000 years. But if you choose a point like the end of the Little Ice Age you could argue that we are warmer and have warmed. As I pointed out before, even Hansen admitted that the 1930s were warmer than the 1990s for the US. (There isn't enough very reliable data to make a call about global temperatures.)
But the problem for the AGW crowd is that the can't even explain what average temperature really means. You can have a brutally cold winter one year but a warm spring and fall and a mild summer. The 'average' will be higher than the typical year even though the highs were not particularly high and some of the lows were brutally low. Why is it bad if we get a high average temperature if that average was produced by much higher lows at night during the winter in areas that are usually brutally cold? Is it a problem for the world if the Arctic nights are -25C instead of the typical -35C? Why?
As for maximum ice extent, please read our comments above.
Why not just look at the data? The data point is above the average. It has been above the average many times over the satellite era. There is no trend showing. So what again is the problem?
And let us note the comments that you fools made about penguins, hurricanes, polar bears, etc., etc., etc. All have been discredited. Why should we pay attention?
well, even the Colorado folks say this:
"Ice age data this year show that the ice cover remains much thinner than it was in the past, with a high proportion of first-year ice, which is thin and vulnerable to summer melt. After the record low minimum of 2007 the Arctic lost a significant amount of older, thicker ice, both from melting and from movement of ice out of the Arctic the following winter. In the last few years, the melt and export of old ice was less extreme than in 2007 and 2008, and multiyear ice started to regrow, with second and third-year ice increasing over the last three years.
After the near-record melt last summer, second-year ice declined again, but some of the ice that had survived the previous few summers made it through another year, increasing the proportion of third- and fourth-year ice. However the oldest, thickest ice, more than four years old, continued to decline. Ice older than four years used to make up about a quarter of the winter sea ice cover, but now constitutes only 2%. "
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
I can't quite understand here.
the Colorado folks seem to be affiliated with NOAA ...even get funding from NOAA... and other govt sources but are they really disagreeing with NOAA?
"the Colorado folks seem to be affiliated with NOAA ...even get funding from NOAA... and other govt sources but are they really disagreeing with NOAA"
Rather than worrying about who helps fund NSIDC, step back and look at a bigger picture.
You are looking at ice coverage over a 30 year period, for the arctic region only. How important is this in a longer time frame?
Did you find that there is only anything even approaching accurate measurements of arctic ice in the very recent past?
Did you find historical records of navigation through the Northwest Passage by sailing ships, something that would indicate lower ice extent at those times also?
Is there anything other than temperatures, perhaps wind and ocean current patterns in recent years that have affected arctic ice extent?
Be sure to run the fun animation at the link, and follow the links in the article.
What meaningful conclusions do you hope to tease from that tiny view, as relates to "global warming", and more importantly, to the role of CO2 in any such warming?
You might consider looking at global ice coverage, as has been suggested. What can you find out about antarctic ice coverage? Has it been increasing? How about total global ice coverage?
the Colorado folks seem to be affiliated with NOAA ...even get funding from NOAA... and other govt sources but are they really disagreeing with NOAA?
Follow the money. They will say what they have to in order to keep the grant money flowing. In the climate debate funding is much more important than the scientific principle.
VangelV: First of all, a linear fit does work very well.
You probably mean sinusoidal, but in any case, both graphs show an upward trend, which is especially apparent when you remove the effects of volcanoes, ENSO and solar variations.
Foster & Rahmstorf, Global temperature evolution 1979–2010, Environmental Research Letters 2011.
http://ej.iop.org/images/1748-9326/6/4/044022/Full/erl408263f5_online.jpg
VangelV: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/amopdo_regression.png
In all instances the raw data shows nothing material but in all instances the data was 'adjusted' to produce a warming trend.
It's not extraordinary that the atlantic and pacific oscillation would affect temperatures in the U.S. Not sure your point.
VangelV: The 'team' wrote a paper in 2005 in which they predicted a monotonic increase in heat content of the oceans.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png
VangelV: There is no trend.
The trend is quite apparent, but adding Arctic and Antarctic together makes it harder to see. The Antarctic was expected to increase somewhat due to increased precipitation.
NSIDC: "Arctic sea ice extent underwent a strong decline from 1979 to 2011, but Antarctic sea ice underwent a slight increase, although some regions of the Antarctic experienced strong declining trends in sea ice extent."
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/images/arc_antarc_1979_2011.png
VangelV: The ice cover today is around the mean.
You're just seeing what your preconceptions let you see. The peak ice is significantly lower than average, it's just delayed.
http://arctic-roos.org/observations/satellite-data/sea-ice/observation_images/ssmi1_ice_ext.png
VangelV: There is no trend showing.
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images-ocean/si-fig2.jpg
It's not extraordinary that the atlantic and pacific oscillation would affect temperatures in the U.S. Not sure your point.
You don't? They clearly affect temperatures much more than CO2 emissions do. Temperatures were declining while CO2 emissions were exploding but the AMO/PDO were in cooling phases. Do you get it now?
VangelV: The 'team' wrote a paper in 2005 in which they predicted a monotonic increase in heat content of the oceans.
Response: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png
My point exactly. Your graph is created by splicing a lot of data together, including floats that have been admitted to overstate temperatures. But if you look at the end of the graph you notice no warming since 2003. That is when the ARGO system came on line and comprehensive data became available to researchers. The paper was written in 2005 and in a matter of months the team went into a panic about the "missing heat".
For the record, the team is now claiming that the missing heat is hiding in the uncertainties between systems that are used to record the measurements. Funny how those uncertainties did not matter when your graph was being put together.
The trend is quite apparent, but adding Arctic and Antarctic together makes it harder to see. The Antarctic was expected to increase somewhat due to increased precipitation.
No. There is no trend. We are talking about GLOBAL warming, not just Arctic warming or ice cover. Even NASA has admitted that much of the Arctic ice cover is regulated by the AO and wind conditions that have nothing to do with human emissions of CO2 or general temperature trends. The data shows that global ice cover has been bouncing around the mean since the beginning of the satellite record. As for the Arctic, the alarmists have not said much about the very low cover during the 1970s. Arctic sea ice extent increased by around 15% between 1974 and 1978 and ice cover in 1974 was less than it is today. If we include that data nothing today looks very alarming. Even Hansen and Lebedeff (1987) agreed.
What I do not understand is why you ignore the Hansen data and why you don't pay much attention to Poyakov. Both show that there is nothing unusual about Arctic ice cover at this time. And given the fact that during the Holocene the Arctic was ice free in the summer I don't see what the big deal is. Do you?
You're just seeing what your preconceptions let you see. The peak ice is significantly lower than average, it's just delayed.
The data point is above the mean. End of story. The fact that you do not like it does not make it true.
how is this statement from the Colorado Center reconciled with the data you attribute to them?
" Causes of global climate change and ice decline
How do we know human activities cause climate change?
Fossil fuel burning is responsible for climate change because of the way in which an increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere alters the planet’s energy budget and makes the surface warmer.
The most fundamental measure of Earth’s climate state is the globally averaged surface air temperature. We define climate change as an extended trend in this temperature. Such a change cannot happen unless something forces the change. Various natural climate forcings exist. For example, periodic changes in the Earth’s orbit about the sun alter the seasonal and latitudinal distribution of solar radiation at the planet’s surface; such variations can be linked to Earth’s ice ages over the past two million years.n or energy budget.
An increase in the atmosphere’s concentration of carbon dioxide is also a climate forcing: it leads to a situation in which the planet absorbs more solar radiation than it emits to space as longwave radiation. This means the system gains energy. The globally averaged temperature will increase as a result. This is in accord with a fundamental principle of physics: conservation of energy. As humans burn fossil fuels, adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, globally average temperature rises as a result."
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/faq/#anthropogenic
VangelV: There is no trend. We are talking about GLOBAL warming, not just Arctic warming or ice cover.
Of course there's a trend, you can even see it in your graph. The Arctic and Antarctic icecaps are about the same extent, but while the Arctic is shrinking at about 3% per year, the Antarctic is growing at about 2% per year, for a net global loss. And again, the Antarctic, which is largely desert, was expected to grow for some time due to increased precipitation.
VangelV: The data point is above the mean. End of story.
Which illustrates that you don't know how to determine a trend line.
VangelV: They clearly affect temperatures much more than CO2 emissions do.
Sure. Just like the Sun rising in the morning affects temperature more than CO2 emissions do.
For years we have been told the Earth is melting like a popcycle, and that humanity will would soon be boiled alive in a rising sea. Well, today that lie stands exposed with evidence that any child can understand. I give you frozen water, falling from the sky.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-10-2010/unusually-large-snowstorm
How do we know human activities cause climate change?
Fossil fuel burning is responsible for climate change because of the way in which an increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere alters the planet’s energy budget and makes the surface warmer.
Funny how they conveniently ignore a bigger problem.
http://notrickszone.com/2011/04/23/soot-emerging-as-main-driver-of-arctic-warming/
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-20055758.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/12/02/us-climate-arctic-idUSTRE4B16R420081202
But as I pointed out above, if you look at Hansen's data or Polyakov's studies you still do not find anything unusual about Arctic ice cover. And since we have seen ice cover at this level 35 years ago I do not see how anyone can talk about any trend.
Of course there's a trend, you can even see it in your graph. The Arctic and Antarctic icecaps are about the same extent, but while the Arctic is shrinking at about 3% per year, the Antarctic is growing at about 2% per year, for a net global loss. And again, the Antarctic, which is largely desert, was expected to grow for some time due to increased precipitation.
There is no global loss. The data point shows the anomaly above the mean. And when you look at the Arctic you see that we have more ice today than we did in 2007 and later years. Stop cherry picking one data point from a volatile set and using that as the basis for your entire argument. If you look at the bigger picture you find that even a fool like Hansen has published papers that show how Arctic amplification took temperatures much higher and how the 1930s were much warmer than 1970s. Of course, the data was adjusted to help your narrative. Isn't that fraud? When you take the previously published data and remove 1C from previous warm readings how can we believe the claim of any unusual warming? And let us note that even with the adjustment the news for the CO2 crowd is extensive since even the adjusted figure shows significant cooling at the same time as CO2 emissions have exploded and CO2 concentrations are rising. And let us know that the ice cover data cited above shows that the mid 1970s had about as much ice cover as today. I can't see how you can persist in the cry wolf routine without embarrassment.
Which illustrates that you don't know how to determine a trend line.
Look at the Global Sea Ice Anomaly. You can see that it has been bouncing around the mean since 1979 with as many points above the mean as below. The point today is above the mean. That shows that there is no meaningful long term trend.
As for local trends you can't determine one unless you go through a full cycle. Given the fact that Polyakov and others have found Arctic oscillations to last around 80 years you cannot say much about anything by looking at a decade's or two worth of data. Did you inconveniently forget Hansen and Lebedeff 1987? The Arctic was much warmer in the 1930s than it was in the 1970s even though CO2 emissions and emissions of carbon black exploded in the 1940s. If CO2 were as big a factor as you fools imply the Arctic should have been much warmer in 1987 than in 1945. The fact that it wasn't is a serious problem for the team.
And please do not point to any 'revised' graphs such as I provided to try to imply something else. We know that the team has rewritten the past and abandoned the use of actual measurements in favour of imputed temperatures calculated by algorithms. If you are going to cite data please cite the actual measurements where they are available. And admit that where they aren't you don't have any data to draw a conclusion.
VangelV: Funny how they conveniently ignore a bigger problem.
You're funny. From your link:
"The research team includes scientists from Norway, Russia, Germany, Italy and China. They are working from Svalbard, Norway, a group of nine mountainous, ice- and snow-covered islands inside the Arctic Circle, about halfway between the northern tip of Norway and the North Pole."
"the United Nations Environmental Program urged cuts in soot emissions for a variety of reasons, including the threat to human health from inhaling it and the potential warming of the polar regions."
VangelV: The data point shows the anomaly above the mean.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
You can keep saying it, but it's obviously trending down. Notice that most of the red data-points on the right are below the line, while most of the red data-points on the left are above the line. Furthermore, we showed you the separate trend-lines for Arctic and Antarctic here:
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/images/arc_antarc_1979_2011.png
And still more, the Antarctic, which is largely desert, was *expected* to increase its ice extent for the near term due to increased precipitation.
You're funny. From your link:
"The research team includes scientists from Norway, Russia, Germany, Italy and China. They are working from Svalbard, Norway, a group of nine mountainous, ice- and snow-covered islands inside the Arctic Circle, about halfway between the northern tip of Norway and the North Pole."
"the United Nations Environmental Program urged cuts in soot emissions for a variety of reasons, including the threat to human health from inhaling it and the potential warming of the polar regions."
You are missing the point. They are discovering that much of the melting that the AGW crowd was warning us about came from the effects of soot, not CO2 emissions. That point is being ignored because the public is still being told that CO2 is to blame.
You can keep saying it, but it's obviously trending down. Notice that most of the red data-points on the right are below the line, while most of the red data-points on the left are above the line. Furthermore, we showed you the separate trend-lines for Arctic and Antarctic here:
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/images/arc_antarc_1979_2011.png
During the past three decades the global sea ice anomaly has bounced around the mean. Today it is above the mean. The fact that you can have a period of a few years below or above the mean is not very important because there are short term cyclical factors that persist. Actually, even the three decades of data is not important because the important cycles tend to last around 80 years or so.
And still more, the Antarctic, which is largely desert, was *expected* to increase its ice extent for the near term due to increased precipitation.
The chart deals with sea ice, not ice in Greenland or ice in continental Antarctica. And the precipitation only increases the thickness of the ice on the continent not, its area.
VangelV: That point is being ignored because the public is still being told that CO2 is to blame.
Heh. Which is why the scientists hid the news by hiding it on CBS. Albedo is an important issue in climate science.
VangelV: During the past three decades the global sea ice anomaly has bounced around the mean.
It's been trending lower. You can see it on the graph you provided. Taking the left side of the red line, there is more area contained above the mean than below. Taking the right side of the red line, there is more area contained below the mean than above. Perhaps there is a longer cyclical trend, but that is not apparent from the graph you provided. And you can see the trend even better when you separate the Arctic and Antarctic signals. Adding them together is deceptive, as climate scientists have expected Antarctic ice extent to increase over the short run.
The reason we repeat this is because you haven't responded.
VangelV: And the precipitation only increases the thickness of the ice on the continent not, its area.
Antarctic is covered by flowing rivers of ice.
Heh. Which is why the scientists hid the news by hiding it on CBS. Albedo is an important issue in climate science.
It is an important issue but it has taken a position way behind CO2. Take a look at the media reporting of ice cover and see how many stories you are getting about soot versus how many are pointing to CO2.
It's been trending lower. You can see it on the graph you provided. Taking the left side of the red line, there is more area contained above the mean than below. Taking the right side of the red line, there is more area contained below the mean than above. Perhaps there is a longer cyclical trend, but that is not apparent from the graph you provided. And you can see the trend even better when you separate the Arctic and Antarctic signals. Adding them together is deceptive, as climate scientists have expected Antarctic ice extent to increase over the short run.
The data point is above the mean. The period in question is less than half of what a typical cycle lasts so you can't really say much about a trend until you get a lot more data. I suggest that you look into a stats course.
And I keep pointing out, the graph does not deal with ice on land. It is a graph of sea ice cover. The global sea ice cover did not decrease. Even the Arctic shows no material change since the 1970s.
As I said, there is no evidence of any material change just as there was no evidence of a problem with polar bear or penguin populations. The warmers made up all kinds of crap only to be discredited when the data showed that those predictions failed.
VangelV: It is an important issue but it has taken a position way behind CO2.
The media has troubles reporting science. They prefer a controversy. Maybe you should go on TV and say that soot control freaks are in cahoots with the socialists to establish a world government.
VangelV: The data point is above the mean.
Yes, you keep illustrating how you don't understand how to find a trend line.
VangelV: The period in question is less than half of what a typical cycle lasts so you can't really say much about a trend until you get a lot more data.
Perhaps, but the trend over the period in question is quite apparent.
VangelV: I suggest that you look into a stats course.
A stats course would indicate that you can't reliably determine a cycle from less than half a wave.
VangelV: Even the Arctic shows no material change since the 1970s.
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/images/arc_antarc_1979_2011.png
The media has troubles reporting science. They prefer a controversy. Maybe you should go on TV and say that soot control freaks are in cahoots with the socialists to establish a world government.
Let us not blame the media for believing the liars who were promoting AGW now. Without the media Mann would have been exposed as a fraud years ago and Trenberth, Jones, and company would be in jail.
Perhaps, but the trend over the period in question is quite apparent.
If you have an 80 year cycle four years out of thirty do not make a trend. And there is no statistically significant trend in the sea ice data. The ice cover today is above the 30 year mean. There is no catastrophic loss of sea ice. And even the past decade in the Arctic is not unusual when you look at the IPCC data that I cited. Ice cover is around the same level as it was in the 1970s when we were being warned of a coming ice age.
VangelV: Even the Arctic shows no material change since the 1970s.
Response: http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/images/arc_antarc_1979_2011.png
I cite the first IPCC report. At that time, before the data was massaged by the gatekeepers on the 'team' there was a different picture being painted.
Sea-ice conditions are now reported regularly in marine synoptic observations, as well as by special reconnaissance flights, and coastal radar. Especially importantly, satellite observations have been used to map sea-ice extent routinely since the early 1970s. The American Navy Joint Ice Center has produced weekly charts which have been digitised by NOAA. These data are summarized in Figure 7.20 which is based on analyses carried out on a 1° latitude x 2.5° longitude grid. Sea-ice is defined to be present when its concentration exceeds 10% (Ropelewski, 1983). Since about 1976 the areal extent of sea-ice in the Northern Hemisphere has varied about a constant climatological level but in 1972-1975 sea-ice extent was significantly less. In the Southern Hemisphere since about 1981, sea-ice extent has also varied about a constant level. Between 1973 and 1980 there were periods of several years when Southern Hemisphere sea-ice extent was either appreciably more than or less than that typical in the 1980s.
See? The variation in ice cover is nothing new and neither are the levels. Like your polar bear narrative it is time for this one to go away too.
VangelV: Let us not blame the media for believing the liars who were promoting AGW now.
Yes, they're hiding the secret on CBS News and Reuters!
VangelV: And there is no statistically significant trend in the sea ice data.
You keep saying that. It's quite clear from your own chart that there is a trend. Of course, if you provide the original numerical data, we could run a regression.
VangelV: I cite the first IPCC report.
That's fine, but that's not what you said and what you've been defending. You said there was no downward trend on the particular graph you provided. You could look right at it and see the trend. And the arctic showed a clear trend. That doesn't mean the trend will continue, but your words and your graph don't match.
In any case, the poles are highly variable. Small changes in air and water currents can create big changes in ice formation and melt. Additional data since the 1990's has shown an increasing melt. You might claim this is all part of the natural variation, but there is substantial evidence of global warming.
This NOAA chart might help clarify matters. It shows data from a variety of sources, including satellite, balloon and ground-based instrumentation.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
In particular, note that the lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling, the *signature* of greenhouse warming.
Bismarck is Dead sez:
"Additional data since the 1990's has shown an increasing melt. You might claim this is all part of the natural variation, but there is substantial evidence of global warming."
What additional data is that, and in any case, so what?
The very fact that you can write the words: "substantial evidence of global warming" indicates to readers that you haven't kept yourself current on this topic.
First of all, serious defenders of the now defunct meme no longer use the term "global warming", as it all too frequently elicits uncontrollable chuckling. The more acceptable term is now "climate change", something no one argues against, and which covers all possible climate conditions and trends.
Then, you have used all the same tired arguments a true believer might have used 6-8 years ago, but not any longer, as so many of them have been exposed as misrepresentations and outright false claims.
Finally, do you have any idea how silly you appear when you fervently defend a claim that there's a trend in Arctic ice data over a thirty year period, and that it is an indication of something important?
It seems that you have plenty of time on your hands to defend a failed political scheme posing as science, but not enough to keep your knowledge of the subject current.
Ron H: First of all, serious defenders of the now defunct meme no longer use the term "global warming", as it all too frequently elicits uncontrollable chuckling. The more acceptable term is now "climate change", something no one argues against, and which covers all possible climate conditions and trends.
"Global warming" and "climate change" mean different things. The former refers to mean global surface temperature, while the latter refers to changes in climate. Nor is the term "global warming" obsolete. Here's a smattering of recent papers:
Solomon et al., Contributions of stratospheric water vapor to decadal changes in the rate of global warming, Science 2010.
Battisti et al., The impact of Global Warming on global crop yields due to changes in pest pressure, American Geophysical Union 2011.
Körner & Basler, Phenology under global warming, Nature 2010.
Pandolfi et al., Projecting coral reef futures under global warming and ocean acidification, Science 2012.
Ron H: Then, you have used all the same tired arguments a true believer might have used 6-8 years ago, but not any longer, as so many of them have been exposed as misrepresentations and outright false claims.
Well, no. The evidence still indicates that the troposphere abd surface has warmed over the last half century and the stratosphere has cooled.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
There's been a recent reanalysis of the data by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, and like other studies, has confirmed the trend analysis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth_Surface_Temperature
http://berkeleyearth.org/
Z: "Nor is the term "global warming" obsolete. Here's a smattering of recent papers:"
Well, We stand corrected, LOL, the giggle inducing term is still in use. Imagine that.
"There's been a recent reanalysis of the data by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, and like other studies, has confirmed the trend analysis.
http://en.wikipedia.org"
Yaawwn!
Um. Yes the old BEST project. We had such high hopes for that, but it seems to have disappointed like so many others. We can't for the life of us remember the details at the moment, except it seemed to involve accusations of a publicity stunt. Maybe at a later time we can refresh our memory on that one.
There may have been some inappropriate statistical methods used with that one also.
Z
After a brief search we found this from mathematician Doug Keenan, a tedious to read email exchange that mentions some of the problems with the BEST report, including the use of smoothed time series, a statistical no-no.
Apparently the BEST paper offered no more clarity than the defunct Mann et al. papers.
Ron H: After a brief search we found this from mathematician Doug Keenan, a tedious to read email exchange that mentions some of the problems with the BEST report, including the use of smoothed time series, a statistical no-no.
Doug Keenan: "I agree that the BEST surface temperature record is very probably roughly right, at least over the last 120 years or so. This is for the general shape of their curve, not their estimates of uncertainties."
Based on your own citation, the globe has observably warmed over the last half century.
Keenan's position is that the observed rise in temperature could be statistical noise, and that the statistical methods used, which Keenan hadn't read at the time of your linked article, don't properly analyse the data. We'll see how the analysis fares during the review process.
Handwaving based on someone who hasn't even read the statistical methods doesn't constitute a very strong argument.
Based on your own citation, the globe has observably warmed over the last half century.
Not exactly. If you include stations that have shown an increase due to changes in land use, which would be most stations inside or near cities then it is clear that there is a trend of increasing temperatures. And if you use the data that has had a warming signal added to the measurements then yes, there is a definite warming signal. But the raw data does not show any material warming since the 1930s.
And let us note that the greatest impact to the average comes (conveniently) from polar regions where stations have been moved next to paved runways that are kept clear in the winter in settlements that are growing, or in locations where the sensors have been moved from Stevenson Stations to MMTS systems where the sensors are very close to buildings and equipment that take the minimum readings much higher.
The fact is that a survey of stations showed that most of them are not in compliance with the standards. Most of them are off by more than twice the claimed warming trend since the end of the Little Ice Age so it is difficult to argue that we should trust a trend that is far smaller than the error bars.
Try as hard as it might, it is still very difficult for the AGW to present any empirical evidence for man made warming that is caused by emissions of CO2. We can find plenty of evidence about how local warming was caused by changes in land use, with the installation of wind turbines being the latest example, but there is nothing that really links CO2 to global warming.
VangelV: If you include stations that have shown an increase due to changes in land use, which would be most stations inside or near cities then it is clear that there is a trend of increasing temperatures.
That's one of the reasons for the study, to determine whether the urban heat island effect was skewing the numbers. BEST, and a number of other studies, have shown that this is not the case.
According to Ron H's cited expert, the surface has warmed over the last century, but what Keenan thinks isn't clear from the analysis is whether the warming is merely noise in the climate system.
"Based on your own citation, the globe has observably warmed over the last half century."
And no one is arguing otherwise, but as Keenan and many others have pointed out, the claimed warming is quite small, and is within the margin of error.
Considering the problems involved in the measurements themselves, the lack of some of the original raw data at this time because "we've lost it", the ridiculously short time period you are alarmed about, the lack of evidence that warming is harmful, the lack of any indication that it will continue, and the fact that a global mean temperature is only a statistic with no real value, the only reasonable response must be:
"Hmm...That's nice, but so what? What's your point?"
We haven't even discussed causes, or more importantly the obvious fraud and deception that has occurred in the name of "science".
It's really hard to understand how any thinking person can take this stuff seriously anymore.
Ron H: Considering the problems involved in the measurements themselves
That's what the BEST project was studying. Your only evidence thus far is citing Keenan, who criticized the statistical methods without reading the paper on statistical methods. (Contrary to what Keenan said, they didn't use smoothed data to determine the trend, but a Monte Carlo method.)
Ron H: the lack of some of the original raw data at this time because "we've lost it",
That is incorrect. The data has always been available, but not always available in the aggregate. However, the BEST project is making its data and methods publicly available.
Ron H: It's really hard to understand how any thinking person can take this stuff seriously anymore.
Just the majority of scientists working in climate science and related fields, and virtually every major scientific academy and institute.
That is incorrect. The data has always been available, but not always available in the aggregate. However, the BEST project is making its data and methods publicly available.
No, CRU does not have all of the raw data. It only has the value added data that has been 'adjusted' by Jones and others. Without the original data the results can't be replicated.
And Best cannot hide the fact that for the US even GISS admitted that the 1930s were warmer than the 1990s and that 1934 was the warmest year. As for much of the rest of the world, it has similar data integrity problems.
Funny how those CRU people keep popping up in other places and manage to change the data in ways that cannot be justified. Given what the actual measurements tell us why should we trust them again?
VangelV: No, CRU does not have all of the raw data.
They aggregated the data. However, the original data has always been available from the original sources.
VangelV: And Best cannot hide the fact that for the US even GISS admitted that the 1930s were warmer than the 1990s and that 1934 was the warmest year.
The U.S. is only 2% of the world's surface, one year does not make a trend, and CRU is not the entire climate science community.
VangelV: As for much of the rest of the world, it has similar data integrity problems.
In order to cross-check the data, satellite long-wave studies have confirmed the warming trend.
They aggregated the data. However, the original data has always been available from the original sources.
First, not all of the data is available. That is a serious problem.
Second, the value added data set cannot be reproduced from the original. In the case of NZ the government admitted that it could not justify turning a flat trend that was evident in the original measurements into a 1C per century increase. The Australian raw data is the same; the original shows a relatively flat trend with a lot of variation linked to PDO and ENSO conditions while the 'adjusted' set shows a large warming trend. In the case of the US even GISS admitted to the 1930s being the warmest decade of the 20th century. In short, there is nothing in the raw data to show a statistically significant warming trend particularly when the bias is considered as a factor. The US supposedly has the best stations but an independent audit showed that the most poorly sited stations were warmer
compared to the reported North American Regional Reanalysis than are other stations. The audit also stated that the biggest part of the bias was linked with the siting classification rather than the geographical location. This means that a rural station that has been poorly sited could wind up showing a much bigger bias than an urban station that meets the siting criteria. The audit showed that more than 70% of the audited stations had a bias of more than 2C, which is significant when you consider that the claimed warming is only around 0.7C.
The biggest problem that the warmers have are the admissions by the gatekeepers at GISS that the 1930s were the warmest decade and the presence of an original data set that cannot be hidden from public view. In fact the existence of the old data sets are creating a credibility problem for the GISS people because they have not archived any of the previous data set versions or explained why they were changed in the first place. The fact that the adjustments do not indicate random errors but a systemic bias leads to many other questions that are very inconvenient for them.
The U.S. is only 2% of the world's surface, ....
True. But to have a global figure you have to have global coverage. And that is missing because many areas of the world do not have continuous, consistent, or accurate records. The problem for the warmers is that in many areas the raw data shows no material warming since the 1930s and that a warming only shows up after data keepers have made 'adjustment' to the original temperature readings.
...one year does not make a trend,...
Not unless you are an AGW supporter and use one year to hype hurricanes, tornadoes, drought, flood, etc., etc., etc. But we are not talking about one year. We are talking about 80 years during which the previous warming as shown in the original measurements has yet to be exceeded. To get a trend you have to create it by adjustments by algorithms that are not justified in the majority of the individual cases and by ignoring warming bias due to site condition changes.
...and CRU is not the entire climate science community.
No. But it provides the value added set that the community uses to create its temperature reconstructions. Unless those can be replicated form original data the science is not valid.
Let me point out one other problem for the AGW crowd. Even if it can get away with the data manipulation it still cannot show that CO2 is a driver of temperature change. The team has to use plug factors to deal with the fact that temperatures were falling from the 1930s to the 1970s even though CO2 emissions were exploding. It has to scramble to explain why we have not seen any statistically meaningful atmospheric warming for more than a decade and why the ARGO system is not showing the ocean heat storage that was predicted. Note that the team has chosen narrative over empirical observations and sound theoretical models that make sense. That is why nobody believes what it has to say any longer and why a skeptic victory on the political front only required a delay in policy implementation. Once the cap and trade taxes were stopped nature took care of the rest and showed that people are not eager to play the Cry Wolf game for very long.
In order to cross-check the data, satellite long-wave studies have confirmed the warming trend.
Nonsense. Satellites did not check the data that the team made up during periods of war, famine, or general disinterest. Satellites could not show why the raw data, which showed no major warming since the 1930s should be 'adjusted' to show a warming trend. As usual you are just making stuff up.
And one last thing. When the heroes of the environmental movement are turning against the IPCC and the global warming hype you should pay attention.
Did you have indications that the dangers of global warming were overblown?
For years I believed the science of the IPCC was solid. I had the famous hockey stick graph (a graph purporting to show that current global temperatures are by far the highest in the last 1000 years, editor) in all my presentations. But then I read the book The Hockey Stick Illusion by Andrew Montford, which is very critical about this graph. Slowly I started to realize we have been misguided by the IPCC about the natural fluctuations in the climate in the past thousands of years. The whole purpose of the IPCC has been to get rid of the so-called Medieval Warm Period, a warm period around the year 1000 when the Vikings settled on Greenland and were able to live there for a couple of centuries. After this warm period we have had the Little Ice Age which coincided with a very quiet sun. Many papers have been published in the last few years which show that the Little Ice Age was not a local European phenomena, as the IPCC suggests. So yes, the IPCC has underestimated the natural fluctuations of the climate and overestimated the role of CO2.
You do not deny though that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that it will generate warming. What is the main difference between your view and the generally accepted view that CO2 is currently the dominant climate factor?
The IPCC has made a couple of errors. The first is that they have diminished the influence of the sun to about five percent of the effect of CO2. So the IPCC is claiming that since the end of the Little Ice Age CO2 caused twenty times more warming than the sun. In this period the sun went from a very quiet to a very active state. From 1950 to 2000 the sun was more active than it has been for probably a thousand years. Now the IPCC mainly looks at sunspots and what is called total solar irradiation. But there is more, there is the strong magnetic field of the sun and there are probably mechanisms in the climate system that amplify fluctuations in solar activity. The amplifying mechanisms are still under investigation, but the IPCC ignores these in their climate models. We therefore think that the contribution of the sun is much larger and that it can explain around 50 percent of the warming we have had so far. This also means the effect of CO2 is smaller.
A second major issue is that temperatures have been on a plateau now for fifteen years. Yes it is warm, but it has not been getting warmer anymore. When we and other critics point this out we are criticized. Our critics say fifteen years is not enough to make judgments about the climate. However the climate models of the IPCC expected a warming of 0.2 degrees between 2000 and 2010 and another 0.2 degrees until 2020. So far this warming has not taken place. We can explain this, but the IPCC should come up with an explanation too. So far they haven’t done this. Worse, most people are not even aware that the climate hasn’t been warming for the past fifteen years.
VangelV: First, not all of the data is available.
What data is that?
VangelV: Second, the value added data set cannot be reproduced from the original.
That is incorrect. The trends have been confirmed many times, including most recently by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project which analyzed data from fifteen different sources.
VangelV: In the case of NZ the government admitted that it could not justify turning a flat trend that was evident in the original measurements into a 1C per century increase.
Sorry, but their use of "raw" data improperly combines readings from stations at different elevations. Frankly, skeptics don't understand the data, and grasp at whatever they can that they think supports their position.
VangelV: But to have a global figure you have to have global coverage. And that is missing because many areas of the world do not have continuous, consistent, or accurate records.
Satellites cover the entire globe, and show the same warming trend.
VangelV: Even if it can get away with the data manipulation it still cannot show that CO2 is a driver of temperature change.
Well, you can't understand that if you continue to disregard the data that shows the troposphere is warming.
VangelV: Satellites did not check the data that the team made up during periods of war, famine, or general disinterest.
What satellites do is confirm that the troposphere has been warming while the stratosphere has been cooling.
VangelV: {Vahrenholt}
Please note that your cited expert directly contradicts your position that the Earth's hasn't warmed.
This is the typical tactic of so-called skeptics who argue different (often mutually exclusive) positions.
What data is that?
The actual temperature readings at the stations. The station history data showing moves or changes in methodology. These are important if you want to draw conclusions that are reproducible and scientifically valid.
That is incorrect. The trends have been confirmed many times, including most recently by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project which analyzed data from fifteen different sources.
No, they have not been confirmed. You are talking about different data sets for one. For another even GISS said that for the US the 1930s were warmer than the 1990s. When Hansen's group admits that there was no material warming there is a problem for your side. And let us note that GISS has had a history of 'adjusting' data to make a flat or cooling trend turn into warming.
Let me give you a very well known example. Here is the Orland data in 2007. Here is the data in 2010. Notice that much of the early cooling was removed from the record? Here we see how the adjustment of the data in Santa Rosa turned a cooling trend in the original data into a warming trend in the adjusted data.
Now there is no way for the Berkley team to get into the original data or to even know if GISS has adjusted the stations that they are working with. The reason is simple; GISS does not keep archived data and does not explain the revisions. If I hire a smart kid and give instructions to massage the data to produce a nice warming trend that is exactly what I well get, particularly when s/he does not have to worry about archival evidence.
But as I pointed out, the US data shows no material warming in the 20th century. The 1930s were the warmest decade and 1934 was the warmest year. Now as you rightfully pointed out, the US is not the world. But here is where your problems come in. The fact is that the rest of the world does not have all that many stations, or much in the way of continuity or consistency. Places like Africa have almost no coverage while the ocean data is incomplete, and inaccurate. And when we have looked in detail at countries like NZ and Australia we find that the raw data also shows no warming. To claim a warming trend you need to adjust the data but there is no way to justify those adjustments convincingly.
Sorry, but their use of "raw" data improperly combines readings from stations at different elevations. Frankly, skeptics don't understand the data, and grasp at whatever they can that they think supports their position.
That was the original argument but the warmers failed to support it with evidence. In fact the evidence showed that when a move led to artificially higher readings the adjustment was to make the readings higher still. The NZ government agreed that the trend reported by NIWA could not be justified.
“...after 12 months of futile attempts to persuade the public, misleading answers to questions in the Parliament from ACT and reluctant but gradual capitulation from NIWA, their relentless defence of the old temperature series has simply evaporated....
...NIWA’s complete renunciation of the old graph was confirmed recently by their admission in a court document that the graph was not an “official” record. Which means they have also disowned Dr Jim Salinger’s methodology, which created the graph.
Got it? NIWA hired Salinger to apply the same methods that he used at CRU but when challenged there was no way for the 'adjustments' to be justified. By the way, your claim of altitude adjustments were tried but failed because, as usual, most adjustments were always made to increase the trend regardless of whether a decrease was called for.
Satellites cover the entire globe, and show the same warming trend.
They do not show the same warming trend because they have not been in orbit long enough to cover the period in question. And the satellites show that there was some warming from 1980 to 1998 only to be followed with a cooling trend since then. The major ocean cycles are longer than the period in question. As such the satellites cannot distinguish between one part of a cycle or a real linear trend. But you should already know that.
Well, you can't understand that if you continue to disregard the data that shows the troposphere is warming.
That is not what the data shows It shows that there has been no statistically significant warming trend since 1995. Which is why the cry wolf approach has failed you.
What satellites do is confirm that the troposphere has been warming while the stratosphere has been cooling.
Again I refer you to the fact that the data shows that there has been no statistically significant warming trend in the lower troposphere since 1995.
Please note that your cited expert directly contradicts your position that the Earth's hasn't warmed.
My expert, the hero of the environmental movement who now says that the IPCC has been manipulating the debate and ignoring the evidence is still looking at the value added data sets. I have no problem with that because even if he believes the surface records and does not care or does not know about the data massaging the evidence against CO2 is overwhelming.
I suspect that he has taken a reasonable position. The temperature cooled from the 1930s to the 1950s. Since then the combination of solar activity and changes in the PDO/AMO phases caused temperatures to go up to the latter half of the 1990s. The warming trend would come from the choice of starting points not because we are warmer than the 1930s, MWP, RW, or HO. As such any talk of trends is not very meaningful. But what is meaningful is the evidence that trends at very different time periods are driven by natural factors that have nothing to do with human emissions of CO2.
VangelV: The actual temperature readings at the stations.
The data used for the Berkeley project is publicly available.
http://berkeleyearth.org/dataset/
VangelV: GISS does not keep archived data and does not explain the revisions.
If data is anomalous, that is, is not consistent with neighboring stations, then the data is considered suspect.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/cleaning.html
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html
The data may not be readily available for "some guy on a blog". You might try their FTP server. If that doesn't work, try communicating with the appropriate administrator for the data you are interested in.
Z: "Your only evidence thus far is citing Keenan..."
We don't need evidence. Those proposing that the world as we know it will soon cease to exist unless drastic political action is taken immediately, need to present convincing evidence, and they haven't done so.
That, along with the fraud and deception involved in what HAS been loosely called evidence, make yours a laughable argument.
Z: "They aggregated the data. However, the original data has always been available from the original sources."
Do you mean hand written records kept at each weather station?
Z: "The data may not be readily available for "some guy on a blog". You might try their FTP server. If that doesn't work, try communicating with the appropriate administrator for the data you are interested in."
And why wouldn't data and methods supporting published material be available to "some guy on a blog"? Isn't archived data and methods used required as a condition of publication in most respected journals?
If by "Some guy on a blog" you mean Steve McIntyre, you must be intentionally ignoring just how much resistance he met. Why should he find it difficult to audit the work of published authors? We suspect he did "try their FTP server", and we know that he did "communicate with the appropriate administrator".
Anthony Watts and the Surfacestation Project has done an outstanding job of illuminating some of the problems with the temperature measurement systems we rely on.
You might benefit from actually understanding something about the project, and the nature of the problems with actual measurements, and the difficulty involved in finding a meaningful temperature trend in so much noise.
If you did that, you might not write some of the silly things you do.
Z: "Satellites cover the entire globe, and show the same warming trend."
Well *almost* the entire globe, except for those important areas above and below 85 deg. latitude.
A 30 year temperature trend may be enough to convince you, but we would like a little more before we turn out our lights and park our cars to save the planet. In addition, the satellites are strangely silent about attribution.
Ron H: Those proposing that the world as we know it will soon cease to exist unless drastic political action is taken immediately, need to present convincing evidence, and they haven't done so.
This NOAA chart might help clarify matters. It shows data from a variety of sources, including satellite, balloon and ground-based instrumentation.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
Note that the lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling. It's the inverse relationship that signifies greenhouse warming.
Ron H: And why wouldn't data and methods supporting published material be available to "some guy on a blog"?
Ron H: Isn't archived data and methods used required as a condition of publication in most respected journals?
Yes. That means making the methods available to peers.
Ron H: Well *almost* the entire globe, except for those important areas above and below 85 deg. latitude.
NASA's Earth Observing System includes polar-orbiting satellites.
http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/
Note that the lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling. It's the inverse relationship that signifies greenhouse warming.
No, the lower troposphere has not warmed. And even Phil Jones has admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995. To get any kind of warming you have to ignore the Arctic measurements and use imputed values when doing the calculations. That cannot be justified and is not scientific.
VangelV: No, the lower troposphere has not warmed.
Yes, the lower troposphere *has* warmed over the last half century, while the lower stratosphere has cooled.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
How skeptics view global warming.
VangelV: And even Phil Jones has admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995.
It's best to avoid obvious quote-mining.
Yes, the lower troposphere *has* warmed over the last half century, while the lower stratosphere has cooled.
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming/ar4-fig-3-17.gif
Take another look. During the satellite era we had warming until the mid 1990s and no warming since. Even Phil Jones has admitted that the data shows no statistical warming. Your claims are simply not supported by the data or your own graphs.
It's best to avoid obvious quote-mining.
I am not misquoting. The man said what he said. Cook and the other frauds panicked and created a narrative to explain it. But what he said needs no explanation because the satellites show no warming for a decade and a half during which CO2 emissions were at record levels.
And let me note that the skeptics agree that temperatures have gone up since the 1950s. The problem for your argument is that temperatures fell from the 1930s to the 1970s just as CO2 emissions were exploding. The bottom line is that solar activity does not explain the observations. But natural factors do.
VangelV: Take another look.
Okay.
...
Yes, over the last half century, the troposphere has certainly warmed, while the stratosphere has certainly cooled. You're confusing the shorter term trend with the longer term trend.
For years we have been told the Earth is melting like a popcycle, and that humanity will would soon be boiled alive in a rising sea. Well, today that lie stands exposed with evidence that any child can understand. I give you frozen water, falling from the sky.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-10-2010/unusually-large-snowstorm
VangelV: I am not misquoting.
Didn't say you were misquoting, but quote-mining. Warming during the period was only at 93% confidence, not the usual 95% confidence. As Jones explained at the time, "Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods." When we add just one more year to the interval, from 1995-2009 to 1995-2010, it shows warming at the 95% confidence level.
Jones: "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis."
How skeptics view global warming.
Yes, over the last half century, the troposphere has certainly warmed, while the stratosphere has certainly cooled. You're confusing the shorter term trend with the longer term trend.
No I am not. I am pointing out that your data conveniently starts at one of the cooler points in the last century. We had a temperature decline from the mid 1930s into the 1960s. Even though it warmed from 1950 to 1980 the temperatures of the 1930s were not exceeded. The satellite data became available in the 1970s. From that starting point we have seen a rise to the mid-1990s and a decline since.
The observations are simple to explain. It's the PDO/AMO and solar activity. Solar activity rose to levels not seen in 1,000 years. When it peaked the warming stopped. And we know that a warm PDO means higher temperatures while a cool PDO means lower temperatures.
For years we have been told the Earth is melting like a popcycle, and that humanity will would soon be boiled alive in a rising sea. Well, today that lie stands exposed with evidence that any child can understand. I give you frozen water, falling from the sky.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-10-2010/unusually-large-snowstorm
The cry wolf strategy failed. The AGW movement is now in disarray and turning on its own as they abandon ship in an attempt to rehabilitate their reputations. That will be very difficult given how angry the sheeple have become.
Didn't say you were misquoting, but quote-mining. Warming during the period was only at 93% confidence, not the usual 95% confidence. As Jones explained at the time, "Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods." When we add just one more year to the interval, from 1995-2009 to 1995-2010, it shows warming at the 95% confidence level.
Jones: "It just shows the difficulty of achieving significance with a short time series, and that's why longer series - 20 or 30 years - would be a much better way of estimating trends and getting significance on a consistent basis."
You know even the AGW followers are getting pissed off by the narratives that pop up every time someone in their circle winds up telling the truth. The 20-30 year issue is bogus. If you have a long cycle you need much more than 30 years to establish that anything unusual is going on. Your side seems to believe that the conditions in the Little Ice Age were normal because humans had little influence on climate, at least from the emission of CO2 angle. But it was not a normal period. The Little Ice Age was the coldest period we have had for ten thousand years. If you look at the data you find that there is little room for the effect of man.
VangelV: I am pointing out that your data conveniently starts at one of the cooler points in the last century.
Well, let's look at a century of data then. Same trend.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/208488main_global_temp_change.jpg
VangelV: We had a temperature decline from the mid 1930s into the 1960s.
Coincident with the large increase in aerosols. Once the aerosols were reduced, warming resumed.
VangelV: Solar activity rose to levels not seen in 1,000 years.
Do you mean sunspot activity? The correlation isn't there.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Temp-sunspot-co2.svg/731px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png
VangelV: The Little Ice Age was the coldest period we have had for ten thousand years. If you look at the data you find that there is little room for the effect of man.
Solar irradiance was at a minimum, and there were several episodes of volcanism. Global temperatures probably didn't fall more than about 0.6°C. Certain regions, such as Europe experienced larger drops.
VangelV: You know even the AGW followers are getting pissed off by the narratives that pop up every time someone in their circle winds up telling the truth.
You misrepresented his statement by taking it out of context.
Well, let's look at a century of data then. Same trend.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/208488main_global_temp_change.jpg
There are a few inconvenient problems for your side of the argument.
First, where does the data come from? Is it complete and accurate?
Second, how is the trend calculated?
Third, can the trend be replicated from the original measurements?
The answer to the last question is no, the trend can't be replicated from the original data. The measurements show that the average temperature is not significantly higher than it was in the 1930s. They also show a cooling period from the 1930s to the 1970s even as CO2 emissions exploded.
You are also mixing up data sets again. In the previous posting we were arguing about atmospheric temperatures. You switched that to a trend shows by plotting the surface data but not from the original measurements but from the value added CRU set that cannot be reproduced from original measurements.
I have already pointed out that the original measurements in the US and other countries shows no material warming. To get the warming you need to have Phil Jones apply an artificial trend as he creates a value added set. That is fiction, not science.
Coincident with the large increase in aerosols. Once the aerosols were reduced, warming resumed.
Note that you need a plug factor to try to explain away the divergence. And note that the emission of soot and some aerosols contribute to warming, the opposite of what the 'team' is telling you. Keep in mind that I pointed out to you that NASA and others have already fingered carbon black for some of the melting in the Arctic.
Do you mean sunspot activity? The correlation isn't there.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7b/Temp-sunspot-co2.svg/731px-Temp-sunspot-co2.svg.png
No, I mean solar activity. Read your Svensmark and figure out how it impacts cloud formation in the lower troposphere and how it can explain all of the observations without plug-in factors.
Solar irradiance was at a minimum, and there were several episodes of volcanism. Global temperatures probably didn't fall more than about 0.6°C. Certain regions, such as Europe experienced larger drops.
Firs, solar irradiance is not the entire picture. Solar activity is far more than that. And global temperatures fell far more than 0.6°C. The AGW crowd tried to do away with the evidence for the MWP and LIA but failed miserably. That is one of the reasons why so many have turned against the movement.
You misrepresented his statement by taking it out of context.
I did not take it out of context. The fact is that the 'team' has been scrambling to find the 'missing heat' that it said would have to be there due to the radiative imbalance cause by CO2 emissions. It is not just the atmospheric trends that fall far short of the predictions. The whole data set shows that the predictions have failed to materialise. And now the game is coming to an end as the liars get more and more shrill and many of the former supporters are leaving the sinking ship.
Frankly, I look forward to the next IPCC report. With so much attention being shifted to the links between the lead authors and the green industry as well as the green movement many reviewers will not give the lead authors a pass this time around.
Solar irradiance was at a minimum, and there were several episodes of volcanism. Global temperatures probably didn't fall more than about 0.6°C. Certain regions, such as Europe experienced larger drops.
I forgot to link this study, which shows that there is a link between the solar grand minima and cooling in Europe.
The way I see it, things are so bad that you guys can't even convince the Swedish politicians.
Ron H: Well *almost* the entire globe, except for those important areas above and below 85 deg. latitude.
Z: "NASA's Earth Observing System includes polar-orbiting satellites."
We stand corrected.
Ron H: "Isn't archived data and methods used required as a condition of publication in most respected journals?"
Z: "Yes. That means making the methods available to peers."
LOL
Who, exactly, is a peer, and who decides? Who are the gatekeepers?
Would that group include anyone other than a "climate scientist" or member of the "hockey team"?
Does that mean that the GuyOnBlog
shouldn't attempt to audit the results of a published paper?
In no other area of scientific study do authors refuse to disclose the data or methods used to obtain their results. It is necessary that results be falsifiable, or they are merely opinion.
GuyOnBlog, by the way, isn't a "denier", but a "lukewarmer" who believes that AGW is occurring, but found some serious problems with the work of Mann and team.
VangelV: First, where does the data come from? Is it complete and accurate? Is it complete and accurate?
From a large number of independent sources and methods. Modern measurements are more accurate and more complete, including radiosonde and satellite long wave.
VangelV: Second, how is the trend calculated?
Statistically. For instance, your own cited expert says that there is a statistically significant trend in surface temperatures from 1995-2010.
VangelV: Third, can the trend be replicated from the original measurements?
Of course, there's no perfect and complete data-set. Multiple studies have examined the data and the methodologies, and have confirmed that the trend is real. More important, independent measures have determined the same trend.
VangelV: The measurements show that the average temperature is not significantly higher than it was in the 1930s. They also show a cooling period from the 1930s to the 1970s even as CO2 emissions exploded.
We cited the NOAA, which compiled data from disparate sources. Do you have a recent citation from the primary literature that says global mean surface temperatures have not risen?
VangelV: Note that you need a plug factor to try to explain away the divergence.
Aerosols are not something made up, and they can be studied in natural and artificial experiments.
VangelV: No, I mean solar activity.
Solar activity does indeed affect climate, however, it is not sufficient to explain the current warming trend, and there has been significant divergence in the last few decades.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Solar_vs_Temp_basic.gif
VangelV: Read your Svensmark and figure out how it impacts cloud formation in the lower troposphere and how it can explain all of the observations without plug-in factors.
Heh. You mean explain the warming trend, which doesn't exist?
VangelV: ReadAnd global temperatures fell far more than 0.6°C.
Provide a recent citation to the primary literature of the global mean temperature during the Little Ice Age.
VangelV: I did not take it out of context.
Sure you did. He explained in the same comment that shorter time periods do not always provide statistical significance. By leaving that out of your quote, you gave a false impression of his views, the definition of a quote-mine. Additionally, the expert you yourself cited says there is statistical significance by adding just one more year of data.
Ron H: Who, exactly, is a peer, and who decides?
In the case of climate data, you may have to aggregate it, as the raw data has been collected by thousands of institutions around the world, each with their own protocols. However, more climate data is becoming available to the general public.
http://berkeleyearth.org/dataset/
From a large number of independent sources and methods. Modern measurements are more accurate and more complete, including radiosonde and satellite long wave.
But that is the problem. There is no large source of data that is consistent and accurate for most of the globe. When you do a global reconstruction you need access to such data. And let me point out again that you are not showing reconstructions based on the original data but data that has been 'adjusted' by the AGW promoters. If it can't be replicated from the original data it isn't science.
Statistically. For instance, your own cited expert says that there is a statistically significant trend in surface temperatures from 1995-2010.
You have moved the pea again. To do a proper analysis of the average global temperature you need comprehensive data that is also trustworthy and the ability to reproduce your conclusions. That is not the case in the surface reconstruction that you are providing. And while the data is good for the satellite era it is indicating a cyclical phenomenon, not a linear increase as the warmers are claiming.
Of course, there's no perfect and complete data-set. Multiple studies have examined the data and the methodologies, and have confirmed that the trend is real. More important, independent measures have determined the same trend.
Actually, that is not true. They can't even get the original data that created the CRU value added set because Phil Jones destroyed some that is no longer accessible. By the way, the raw data does not replicate the reconstruction unless you add an artificial warming signal as was done for New Zealand, Australia and the US.
The biggest problem at this time is the ARGO system. Since it went on line in 2003 it has shown that there has been very little storage of heat in the oceans. This falsifies the radiative imbalance theory being pushed by the team. No wonder Trenberth has been going nuts trying to find the 'missing heat' and why the usual frauds have come up with a narrative about the heat being hidden in the uncertainties and the 700 to 2000 meter depth even though there is not much in the way of data to support their arguments.
The interesting part is the solar angle. As we have seen, there are many new papers that make the case that solar activity is the primary driver of the observed changes.
We cited the NOAA, which compiled data from disparate sources. Do you have a recent citation from the primary literature that says global mean surface temperatures have not risen?
You cited the people who added an artificial warming signal to the raw data. The 'warming' comes from the computers, not the measurements.
Aerosols are not something made up, and they can be studied in natural and artificial experiments.
The effect is something that the warmers made up. Even NASA admits that soot causes Arctic heating and helps ice melt to increase. But the modelers assume that aerosols cool instead. And if you look at total emissions there is no support for the assumptions that were being made and for hiding the decline.
Heh. You mean explain the warming trend, which doesn't exist?
Nobody on the skeptic side argues that it has not warmed since the Maunder Minimum. It was Mann and the team who tried to do away with the Little Ice age. The data clearly shows that solar activity is the big driver and that events such as the MWP and LIA can be explained strictly by looking at solar activity.
Provide a recent citation to the primary literature of the global mean temperature during the Little Ice Age.
I have provided several but do not have time to look it up at this time. I will get back to it later. But let me remind you that even the IPCC agreed before Mann's convenient little paper that was proven to be so wrong.
Sure you did. He explained in the same comment that shorter time periods do not always provide statistical significance. By leaving that out of your quote, you gave a false impression of his views, the definition of a quote-mine. Additionally, the expert you yourself cited says there is statistical significance by adding just one more year of data.
As I said, I did not take it out of context. The fact is that there is no statistically significant And there is nothing magic about 30 years of data. As I pointed out, if you have a cyclical phenomenon that is 60 years long the 30 years of data is not enough.
This is a nice trick that the warmers like to use to muddy the waters when it is shown that the data does not agree with their claims.
VangelV: But that is the problem. There is no large source of data that is consistent and accurate for most of the globe.
All scientific observations are subject to error and bias; nonetheless, satellite long wave studies are fairly consistent, as are radiosondes, as well as land and sea surface readings, for the most recent decades. Yet, these diverse methodologies show the same trend.
VangelV: And let me point out again that you are not showing reconstructions based on the original data but data that has been 'adjusted' by the AGW promoters.
Handwaving. You are more than welcome to aggregate the data yourself, then publish your results.
VangelV: You have moved the pea again.
Nope. YOU brought up Jones' statement about statistical significance.
VangelV: They can't even get the original data that created the CRU value added set because Phil Jones destroyed some that is no longer accessible.
The original data has always been available. Jones merely aggregated the data.
VangelV: Since it went on line in 2003 {ARGO} has shown that there has been very little storage of heat in the oceans.
"The upper layer of the world’s ocean has warmed since 1993, indicating a strong climate change signal, according to a new study."
Lyman et al., Robust Warming of the Global Upper Ocean, Nature 2010.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100519_ocean.html
VangelV: You cited the people who added an artificial warming signal to the raw data.
Yes, and your disembodied graph ignores the reasons for the adjustments. Nor is the U.S. Historical Climate Network the only data-set. You may want to read some of the citations.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html
VangelV: The measurements show that the average temperature is not significantly higher than it was in the 1930s.
Zachriel: Do you have a recent citation from the primary literature that says global mean surface temperatures have not risen?
Zachriel: Aerosols are not something made up, and they can be studied in natural and artificial experiments.
VangelV: The effect is something that the warmers made up.
What? The effect was first noted by Ben Franklin in 1784. A prominent historical example is the Year Without a Summer, 1816. More recently, eruptions, such as El Chichón and Mt. Pinatubo, have been used to provide quantitative measures of climate sensitivity.
Wigley et al., Effect of climate sensitivity on the response to volcanic forcing, Journal of Geophysical Research 2005.
VangelV: Nobody on the skeptic side argues that it has not warmed since the Maunder Minimum.
Based on what evidence? A citation would be helpful here.
All scientific observations are subject to error and bias; nonetheless, satellite long wave studies are fairly consistent, as are radiosondes, as well as land and sea surface readings, for the most recent decades. Yet, these diverse methodologies show the same trend.
But that is the problem. The error bars are much larger than the supposed trend. The team tried to under-report the uncertainties and is now paying the price.
Handwaving. You are more than welcome to aggregate the data yourself, then publish your results.
Can't. There is no record of which station data was used for the reconstructions so even if we had access to all the raw measurements it is impossible to replicate the reported trends. As I pointed out, when the data includes an artificial warming signal it is not surprising if the reconstructions pick up that signal.
The funny thing is that the US reconstruction, which came from the best stations (most of which are still biased by more than 2C) did not show the claimed warming. The NZ record also shows no warming trend.
Of course, when you add a station by station, by station, by station adjustments enough times you can create any trend that you want. But a created trend is not real measured trend.
Nope. YOU brought up Jones' statement about statistical significance.
Which is applied very differently for the different data sets. As an aside, my 13 year old keeps arguing that it is not valid to splice measurements between different satellite sensors because he spotted discontinuities when I gave him a set of data to analyze as part of his lesson on using spreadsheets. The areas of concern were related to the switch to new sensor use. He argued that the uncertainty was large if different sensors got different readings and the trend came from splicing.
I imagine the AGW proponents will exploit this type of observation to make 'adjustments' to the data to make the trend even larger while the skeptics will use it to argue for a different trend.
The original data has always been available. Jones merely aggregated the data.
Most of the data is available. Some of it is not. And Jones did not provide the metadata or algorithms that crated the value added sets.
And given the Jones lies about some of the chronologies I would not believe much of what he says.
"The upper layer of the world’s ocean has warmed since 1993, indicating a strong climate change signal, according to a new study."
Lyman et al., Robust Warming of the Global Upper Ocean, Nature 2010.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100519_ocean.html
It is easy to make the claim when you are splicing together data and can cherry pick. But the ARGO data makes that very difficult because it provides a great deal of data since 2003. And that data shows no heat storage in the ocean since 2003. I also find it ironic that much of the conclusions depend on the XBT measurements, which Willis claimed overestimated the heating when he had to backtrack on his original claim that the ocean was not warming and the 'team' got mad at him.
Yes, and your disembodied graph ignores the reasons for the adjustments. Nor is the U.S. Historical Climate Network the only data-set. You may want to read some of the citations.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html
This is narrative. The NIWA could not justify its adjustments in front of the NZ court when it was challenged about the official record. The NZ government got around the problem by claiming that there is no official record. Since that does not stop the warmers from using the data in reconstructions the warmers are happy. But scientists who want replication and clean data are not happy and have abandoned the warming side in droves.
Keep in mind that NOAA has never justified its adjustments on a station by station basis and that even with all of the adjustments to the US system, which provides most of the measurements, shows that the US was warmer in the 1930s than it was in the 1990s.
Zachriel: Do you have a recent citation from the primary literature that says global mean surface temperatures have not risen?
Not really. It is hard to get actual data for many locations, particularly those that were warming the fastest and use imputed temperatures rather than station readings. The problem for your side is the ARGO data. which shown no material warming for the nine years of the system's operation.
What? The effect was first noted by Ben Franklin in 1784. A prominent historical example is the Year Without a Summer, 1816. More recently, eruptions, such as El Chichón and Mt. Pinatubo, have been used to provide quantitative measures of climate sensitivity.
Carbon black on snow and ice causes surface temperatures to go up. Human emissions are not shot up into the stratosphere as emissions from large volcanic eruptions are. And if you look at previous cold periods they are associated with low solar activity. So is volcanic activity.
This is the big problem for the warmers. As their predictions fail to come true they have to scramble to justify the use of plug factors and appeals to arguments that have been discredited.
VangelV: The error bars are much larger than the supposed trend.
Hmm.
http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc_triad.html
VangelV: Can't. There is no record of which station data was used for the reconstructions ...
Then do your own reconstruction. That's what scientists do every day. They work at compiling and understanding data. Then publish your results and let other scientists look at your work.
VangelV: As I pointed out, when the data includes an artificial warming signal it is not surprising if the reconstructions pick up that signal.
You have a habit of ignoring responses.
VangelV: And Jones did not provide the metadata or algorithms that crated the value added sets.
It's more important that scientists have independently analysed the data and confirmed the results.
VangelV: And that data shows no heat storage in the ocean since 2003.
You're still confusing short term with long term. Ahem ...
For years we have been told the Earth is melting like a popcycle, and that humanity will would soon be boiled alive in a rising sea. Well, today that lie stands exposed with evidence that any child can understand. I give you frozen water, falling from the sky.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-10-2010/unusually-large-snowstorm
Anyone can look at the data over the last half century and see a statistically significant trend.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png
VangelV: This is narrative.
It's peer reviewed science. What you offer in reply is just handwaving.
Based on what evidence? A citation would be helpful here.
It is a statement of fact. The skeptics argue that the LIA was a real event and that the earth warmed since the Maunder Minimum. It is the alarmists who tried to do away with both the LIA and the very inconvenient MWP.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hmm.
http://epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc_triad.html
That is not evidence. The warmers have underestimated the uncertainty. Look at the reference to the NOAA adjustments and to the surfacestation.org audits. If you are looking at siting issues that overestimate temperatures by 2C it is hard to argue that your claimed 0.7C trend has meaning.
And the NOAA has very little data for the ocean, which makes up most of our planet's surface and what it had is not very accurate because of the different measurement methods used. When more than half of the world's best stations show a bias of more than 2C and you have almost no coverage for entire continents your certainty is shot to hell and no matter of computer adjustments can reduce that uncertainty.
Then do your own reconstruction. That's what scientists do every day. They work at compiling and understanding data. Then publish your results and let other scientists look at your work.
"Scientists" don't change the data without full disclosure and archiving of the old data for comparison. When the gate keepers have removed a great deal of the old data I can no longer even think about reconstruction particularly when the data that was left includes an undisclosed warming signal that was added by the 'adjustments'.
You have a habit of ignoring responses.
Not if they are valid. As I said, the station data adjustments can't be justified. In NZ activists had to go to court to get the gate keepers to respond. When they got there they could not explain why a flat trend should be turned into a 1C warming trend so the government simply stated that there was no official record. Conveniently, that does not stop the 'scientists' who do the reconstructions from using that data. But that is not science and as the public learns more it is turning against the warmers.
Actually, many of the previous leaders of the movement have now turned against the AGW myth. As James Lovelock, the Gaia guru stated, "The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened. The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now."
It's more important that scientists have independently analysed the data and confirmed the results.
Actually, the results show that the predictions made by Hansen and the warmers was wrong. CO2 rose at a very high rate as stated in Hansen's Scenario A. The problem is that the warming observed even after all the tricks and adjustments is less than half of what was predicted. Which is why people like Lovelock are abandoning ship and letting Jones, Mann, Trenberth, and the rest of the 'team' face the heat.
You're still confusing short term with long term. Ahem ...
No, I am not. I am simply pointing out that the Hansen 2005 article predicted a continual accumulation of ocean heat storage. If there is a radiative imbalance it has to show up in the oceans. The fact that the ARGO system shows that the predicted heat storage did not take place is a huge blow to the theory. That is why Trenberth was whining about the 'missing heat' and why the team is trying to 'hide' the heat in the uncertainties or where there are very few data readings available.
The problem is that the constant changes every time the observations have shown the theory to be in trouble have turned honest scientists against the movement.
It's peer reviewed science. What you offer in reply is just handwaving.
No, it is pal reviewed science. It was funny how SM managed to find the Harry problem in Steig's paper after an hour or two of reading even though his pals missed it. (And how they were so embarrassed that they informed the BAS and claimed that some anonymous woman made the discovery so that SM would not get credit. That woman turned out to be that loud mouth Gavin. Remind me again why you trust anything these idiots and liars tell you?)
VangelV: Nobody on the skeptic side argues that it has not warmed since the Maunder Minimum.
Zachriel: Based on what evidence? A citation would be helpful here.
VangelV: It is a statement of fact.
You're basically saying the "skeptic side argues that it has warmed since the Maunder Minimum" without reference to any evidence. That explains a lot actually.
You're basically saying the "skeptic side argues that it has warmed since the Maunder Minimum" without reference to any evidence. That explains a lot actually.
As I said, it is a statement of fact. How is it that you don't know that the skeptics are claiming that the LIA was a global phenomenon but that Mann and the team are trying to wipe it from the record by portraying it as only a European event? Or the fact that Mann and the team have claimed that there was no MWP? Having no clue about the basics it is easy to see why you persist in talking points that have been discredited.
In case you have missed it some of the leading supporters of AGW have abandoned ship in an effort to rehabilitate their reputations. I guess that all those billions spent to promote the cause did not work out too well.
The 92-year-old Lovelock went on to note, “…the climate is doing its usual tricks…there’s nothing much happening yet even though we were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.” He added, “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time.” Yet the temperature “has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising…carbon dioxide has been rising, no question about that.”
I guess that Lovelock did not read your posting about rising temperatures. Perhaps you can send him a link to Cook's site where he spins wonderful narratives fitting of the best fiction writers to make a case that is not supported by the science.
Vahrenholt: Yeah, I was an active supporter of the CO2 - theory. But then I had two pivotal moments that have inspired me to check my position.
First, I was invited in February 2010 as a scientific reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy in Washington. There I realized that it was received at work is anything but scientific. The report is littered with errors. At the end of the representatives of Greenpeace could edit the final version. The result was the nonsense that can be 80 percent of total world energy needs with renewables.
This has shaken me. I thought if this goes here so, then the other is perhaps the IPCC panel, too. Of the 34 members of the UN Secretariat, the bulk part of the South - such as from Cuba, Sudan, Madagascar, Iran or China. These countries all have an interest in transfer payments. Previously I had thought there would scholars meet and discuss. No, there are delegates - also not always democratically structured - States. They represent interests and exert influence.
BBC News: And the second key experience?
Vahrenholt: We were at RWE Innogy confronted with the fact that the wind and the corresponding current production fell to an appreciable extent. I investigated this phenomenon scientifically and found that there is nothing with CO 2 and global warming has to do, but that it simply natural climate processes are responsible. The activity of the sun plays a major role. I've worked into the matter and then written a year on the book.
How about that. Greenpeace gets to change the report and there is very little science involved. See the problem?
You're basically saying the "skeptic side argues that it has warmed since the Maunder Minimum" without reference to any evidence. That explains a lot actually.
The first posting seems not to have gone through so let me do this again.
First, everyone knows that the sceptics have been arguing that the climate has changed materially over the past 1000 years. There was a MWP and a LIA, which the warmists have tried to deny by portraying them as mostly European events.
Many high profile supporters of the AGM movement have looked at the data again and have abandoned ship very quickly. This is not good news for the cause.
The 92-year-old Lovelock went on to note, “…the climate is doing its usual tricks…there’s nothing much happening yet even though we were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now.” He added, “The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time.” Yet the temperature “has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising…carbon dioxide has been rising, no question about that.”
Notice the admission that the world has not warmed up since the millennium? I guess he forgot to check in with you or the team. Or that he no longer trusts their claims.
Vahrenholt: Yeah, I was an active supporter of the CO 2 -theory. But then I had two pivotal moments that have inspired me to check my position.
First, I was invited in February 2010 as a scientific reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy in Washington. There I realized that it was received at work is anything but scientific. The report is littered with errors. At the end of the representatives of Greenpeace could edit the final version. The result was the nonsense that can be 80 percent of total world energy needs with renewables.
This has shaken me. I thought if this goes here so, then the other is perhaps the IPCC panel, too. Of the 34 members of the UN Secretariat, the bulk part of the South - such as from Cuba, Sudan, Madagascar, Iran or China. These countries all have an interest in transfer payments. Previously I had thought there would scholars meet and discuss. No, there are delegates - also not always democratically structured - States. They represent interests and exert influence.
BBC News: And the second key experience?
Vahrenholt: We were at RWE Innogy confronted with the fact that the wind and the corresponding current production fell to an appreciable extent. I investigated this phenomenon scientifically and found that there is nothing with CO 2 and global warming has to do, but that it simply natural climate processes are responsible. The activity of the sun plays a major role. I've worked into the matter and then written a year on the book.
Got that? Greenpeace editing reports that are not very accurate or scientific to begin with. The continued and deliberate underestimation of natural factors like the sun. These are not people that you can portray as right wing or in the pay of oil companies. They have impressive green credentials and a long history of involvement in the movement. And they have seen the data and don't like the fact that they were fooled.
VangelV: Nobody on the skeptic side argues that it has not warmed since the Maunder Minimum.
Zachriel: Based on what evidence? A citation would be helpful here.
VangelV: Nobody on the skeptic side argues that it has not warmed since the Maunder Minimum.
Zachriel: Based on what evidence? A citation would be helpful here.
I provided you with a link to the NIPCC report. It is full of papers that make the point that temperatures fell from the MWP to the depth of the Little Ice Age and went up from there. The LIA ended in the mid nineteenth century, which is the point where the warmers start looking at temperatures when they spin their narrative.
Here is Dr. Ball's explanation of the temperature variation.
It is your side that tried to deny the MWP and erase it from history by the use of flawed methods and statistical tricks. That was what MBH98 and MBH99 were all about and why the IPCC went nuts when the now discredited hockey stick appeared.
VangelV: I provided you with a link to the NIPCC report.
You provided a link to a 900-page report that covers many topics.
VangelV: Here is Dr. Ball's explanation of the temperature variation.
That refers to the 1995 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Second Assessment Report. We asked for evidence. What data do you think leads to the conclusion of a drop in mean global temperatures?
Zachriel: Based on what evidence? A citation would be helpful here.
I believe that I may have provided this link before but if not here it is again. Note that the paper confirms the skeptic argument that the LIA was a global phenomenon. That contradicts the claims made by the warmers and the IPCC.
VangelV: I believe that I may have provided this link before but if not here it is again.
You provided that previously. It uses ice cores to determine regional temperatures. When combined with the many other proxy measures, it confirms and extends the overall historical record, and suggests that the cooling period was global. Now, let's consider a couple things.
The evidence *you* cite that supports a global cooling period was published this year, yet you accuse scientists of dishonesty for not using results that just became available.
Also, you are saying that we can determine temperature trends from proxies, such as ice cores, but we can't reliably measure them with radiosondes or satellite long wave studies.
Now, based on the evidence you have cited, what was the mean global cooling during the Little Ice Age?
What data do you think leads to the conclusion of a drop in mean global temperatures?
The hundreds of papers showing that the MWP was warmer.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/africa.php
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/antarctica.php
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/australianz.php
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/australianz.php
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/northamerica.php
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/southamerica.php
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/southamerica.php
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/oceans.php
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/asia.php
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/regions/europe.php
VangelV,
I see that your friend has given up arguing science, and is instead looking hard for possible inconsistencies in your statements, in addition to defending the work of frauds.
VangelV: The hundreds of papers showing that the MWP was warmer.
Um, that wasn't the question. But it will do for our purposes. First of all, from your references, not all regions were equally effected. Elsewhere, they use a truly bizarre comparison of the current warming trend and the Medieval Warming Period—they count numbers of studies.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php
Then they misstate why climatologists have concluded that humans are changing the climate.
http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php
Unfortunately, we don't see the estimate for the global mean temperature, which is what we asked.
More important, the studies use a variety of proxies, from stalactite formation to ice cores. It's amazing that scientists can reach reasonable estimates based on these proxies, but what is even more amazing is your claim that scientists can't make reach reasonable estimates from thermometers.
VangelV: The hundreds of papers showing that the MWP was warmer.
Um, that wasn't our question. But it will do for our purposes. A couple of things to note. These are regional changes, and some of them show an increase in temperature, while others show a decrease in temperature. None of these links provide a mean global temperature.
Elsewhere, the site provides a truly bizarre temperature comparison based on a count of studies.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php
More important, the temperatures are based on proxy measures, from the rate of stalagmite formation to ice cores. It's amazing that scientists can make reasonable estimates of temperatures from such tenuous data, but even more amazing that you reject temperature estimates made by scientists using actual thermometers.
I see that your friend has given up arguing science, and is instead looking hard for possible inconsistencies in your statements, in addition to defending the work of frauds.
There is no 'science' to support the AGW theory. If the idiots at the IPCC actually had some empirical evidence that showed that human emissions of CO2 had an impact on changes in temperature trends they would have cited the evidence. All they have are computer models and even if you look at those you see a way out because most of the authors never made the claim that human emissions were entirely responsible and they all chose the cherry picked CO2 concentrations for pre-Industrial Revolution periods. Once the entire scam falls apart I expect them to attack two claims. The first is the CO2 concentration and the second is Jones' paper that quantified the UHI effect. In case you missed it, many of the leading rats have already abandoned ship.
Um, that wasn't our question. But it will do for our purposes. A couple of things to note. These are regional changes, and some of them show an increase in temperature, while others show a decrease in temperature. None of these links provide a mean global temperature.
Actually, they do prove a global warm period when you put them all together. If Antarctica, Asia, Europe, South and North America, and Africa all show that there was warming then it is hard to argue that there was no warming globally. (Unless you are a fanatical AGW believer that is.)
The MBH papers failed to do away with either the MWP or the LIA. And try as they might, Schimdt, Cook, and the other liars have not been able to do away with the inconvenient empirical evidence.
Elsewhere, the site provides a truly bizarre temperature comparison based on a count of studies.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/quantitative.php
The graphic simply shows that the majority of papers show warming for the regions being studied. From what I see there is no appeal to authority or any claim that you have to believe because the majority of scientists who actually did the studies showed a MWP. Of course, we all know that the MWP was real because we have HISTORICAL records that verify the observations. And let us note that even the IPCC did not dispute the MWP until Mann and company played their little trick on the community.
More important, the temperatures are based on proxy measures, from the rate of stalagmite formation to ice cores. It's amazing that scientists can make reasonable estimates of temperatures from such tenuous data, but even more amazing that you reject temperature estimates made by scientists using actual thermometers.
I do not deny the fact that adjusted temperature readings are up. I just question the need and direction of the adjustments and the entire idea of an 'average global' temperature.
When I can get a higher 'average' without having hotter daily temperatures during the hot periods what is the meaning of the observation? After all, if my imputed temperatures show that polar regions are much warmer at night in the winter but show no hotter summers why am I worried about warming? As Dr. M pointed out, there is no valid way to come up with a meaningful 'global average temperature'. Trying to is fiction, not science.
VangelV: some empirical evidence that showed that human emissions of CO2 had an impact on changes in temperature trends they would have cited the evidence.
We did, however, you rejected evidence that the troposphere has warmed over the last half century. Hence, we have to resolve that issue.
VangelV: Actually, they do prove a global warm period when you put them all together.
Except you didn't provide the statistical analysis necessary to do so.
VangelV: If Antarctica, Asia, Europe, South and North America, and Africa all show that there was warming then it is hard to argue that there was no warming globally.
We didn't review every study in your document dump, but of the few we did, some showed warming, some showed cooling.
VangelV: The graphic simply shows that the majority of papers show warming for the regions being studied.
Unfortunately, that doesn't provide us the mean temperature for the period.
VangelV: From what I see there is no appeal to authority or any claim that you have to believe because the majority of scientists who actually did the studies showed a MWP.
Didn't say there wasn't a Medieval Warming Period. We asked you on what evidence you based on your opinion. The answer is you base your opinion on proxy measurements, such as tree rings and stalagmite formation.
VangelV: I do not deny the fact that adjusted temperature readings are up.
VangelV: What warming trend?
In any case, now that we agree the troposphere has been warming, presumably you also accept measurements that indicate the stratosphere has been cooling over the same period. After all, these measurements are at least as reliable as measurements of the rate of stalagmite formation or tree rings. And that means heat is being held closer to the surface, the signature of greenhouse warming.
"In case you missed it, many of the leading rats have already abandoned ship."
I must confess I don't follow this topic nearly as closely as I used to. I'm always surprised to learn that there's still any interest. :)
What's changed forever is our willingness to trust "experts", and that's a good thing.
VangelV: Actually, they do prove a global warm period when you put them all together.
VangelV: there is no valid way to come up with a meaningful 'global average temperature'.
That's funny.
Ron H: I'm always surprised to learn that there's still any interest.
Though public interest waxes and wanes, there is a great deal of scientific interest, with entire journals dedicated to publishing new research on climate and related topics.
That's funny.
Actually, it is sad. The entire average annual temperature figure has no meaning because you can come up with the same number under very different profiles. A high number may actually appear in a year with a mild summer that had an early spring and a late winter, usually an ENSO year. On the other hand, a year with a late spring and early winter that has brutally hot summer days may turn out not to produce a high average. And given the coverage problem and the measurement bias you can have false readings from some areas muddy the waters. It is easy to see warming in some remote northern area when you have moved a Stevenson Screen from a snow covered field to an enclosure next to an airport runway that is cleared regularly. It is even easier to come up with high readings if you ignore the measured local temperatures and use an algorithm to come up with an imputed number instead.
In particular, note that the lower troposphere is warming, as is the surface. Meanwhile, the stratosphere is cooling, the *signature* of greenhouse warming.
I knew that it was only a matter of time before the empirical evidence falsified this little part of the AGW theory. And here we have it. Note the last part of the Abstract which reads, "Thus, our findings suggest that Arctic PSC formation is connected to adiabatice cooling, i.e. dynamic effects rather than radiative cooling."
Now since you have a big problem with the science let me simplify it for you.
We begin by noting that the models cited by the IPCC predict a mid equatorial tropospheric hot spot and a cooling stratosphere. Most of the changes are driven by radiative flux. The models say that the tropospheric clouds absorb a portion of the thermal radiation that comes from the Earth's surface. Because the radiation is prevented from getting to the stratosphere it cools.
Follow me so far? Good, because here comes the part that you will not like.
If the hypothesis were right it requires that the stratospheric cooling is correlated with the temperature of the tropospheric clouds. The warmer the clouds are, the more radiation that they have prevented from reaching the stratosphere.
The data in the paper above falsifies the models.
The paper shows that the radiative flux, is not the primary factor that determines the changes in stratospheric cloud formation and duration. The greenhouse theory argues that temperature change is driven by changes in the radiative flux. The study above implies that the change in temperature is due to a dynamic factor, adiabatic cooling.
So where does this leave the AGW frauds? Well, we have already seen how the ARGO system falsified the heat storage in the oceans prediction. Now we have seen that empirical evidence has taken out the stratospheric cooling straw that the AGW team was grasping at.
Post a Comment
<< Home