Doubled CO2 means just 1.9°C warming, say Norwegian researchers (Link) By Lewis Page • Get more from this author
Posted in Science, 25th January 2013 18:02 GMT
New research produced by a Norwegian government project, described as "truly sensational" by independent experts, indicates that humanity's carbon emissions produce far less global warming than had been thought: so much so that there is no danger of producing warming beyond the IPCC upper safe limit of 2°C for many decades.
“In our project we have worked on finding out the overall effect of all known feedback mechanisms,” says project manager Terje Berntsen, who is a professor at the University of Oslo’s Department of Geosciences and a senior research fellow at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo (CICERO).
“We used a method that enables us to view the entire earth as one giant ‘laboratory’ where humankind has been conducting a collective experiment through our emissions of greenhouse gases and particulates, deforestation, and other activities that affect climate.”
Berntsen and his colleagues' results derive in large part from taking account of the way that global temperatures have remained flat for the last fourteen years or thereabouts, instead of climbing as they ought to have done with increased carbon levels.
“The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity," explains the prof.
“We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming."
At the moment levels of CO2 stand at around 395 parts per million (ppm), climbing at around 2 ppm each year and accelerating. In pre-industrial times the levels is reckoned to have been 280 ppm. Depending on various factors, the amount of atmospheric CO2 might have doubled to 560-odd ppm around the year 2050.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that would be disastrous as it would probably mean 3°C warming or more: and the IPCC considers that anything above 2°C means terrible consequences for humanity. Thus the organisation has long sought to limit atmospheric CO2 at 450 ppm, though this is regarded as a lost cause by many.
But Berntsen and his crew say that analysis is much too pessimistic. They consider that the likeliest result from doubled carbon (which would actually occur some decades after the doubled level was reached) would be just 1.9°C - within the IPCC target. According to the Research Council of Norway, the government arm which funded the new research:
When [the] researchers instead calculate a probability interval of what will occur, including observations and data up to 2010, they determine with 90% probability that global warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration would lie between 1.2°C and 2.9°C.
This maximum of 2.9°C global warming is substantially lower than many previous calculations have estimated. Thus, when the researchers factor in the observations of temperature trends from 2000 to 2010, they significantly reduce the probability of our experiencing the most dramatic climate change forecast up to now.
Other recent research has suggested warming of this sort with doubled CO2, but so far the IPCC and the warmist-alarmist community generally has been reluctant to accept the new findings. However the state of the accepted science is beginning to change, with Britain's Met Office lately revising its forecasts of warming sharply downwards.
Renowned Swedish climate boffin Caroline Leck, who was not involved in the research, commented:
“These results are truly sensational. If confirmed by other studies, this could have far-reaching impacts on efforts to achieve the political targets for climate.”
The Research Council's announcement of the new results can be read here.
Comment The argument will still be made that carbon emissions should be reined in sooner or later, as eventually even in professor Berntsen's forecast possibly-dangerous warming might result should emissions carry on unchecked for the long term.
However, even the previous IPCC imminent doom scenario completely failed to produce any serious action (apart from some dishonest machinations which artifically force up electricity bills to pay for pointless windmills). With the recent gradual scientific acceptance - even among scientists who have spent their whole lives studying the subject - that global warming is simply much less significant than had been thought, the chance of anyone caring enough to take action is now even lower.
We're looking at just a couple of degrees with double CO2 (Link) By Lewis Page • Get more from this author
Posted in Science, 25th November 2011 11:07 GMT
Climate scientists funded by the US government have announced new research in which they have established that the various doomsday global warming scenarios are in fact extremely unlikely to occur, and that the scenarios considered likeliest - and used for planning by the world's governments - are overly pessimistic.
The new study improves upon previous results by including data from the remote past, rather than only examining records from recent times.
"Many previous climate sensitivity studies have looked at the past only from 1850 through today, and not fully integrated paleoclimate date, especially on a global scale," says Andreas Schmittner, professor at the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State uni.
"When you reconstruct sea and land surface temperatures from the peak of the last Ice Age 21,000 years ago – which is referred to as the Last Glacial Maximum – and compare it with climate model simulations of that period, you get a much different picture.
"If these paleoclimatic constraints apply to the future, as predicted by our model, the results imply less probability of extreme climatic change than previously thought," Schmittner adds.
The baseline assumption of climate science at the moment is that given a doubling of atmospheric CO2 compared to pre-industrial levels the most probable result is that the Earth would see a surface temperature rise average of 3°C - and that there would be a significant chance of much bigger, perhaps fatal rises.
Schmittner and his colleagues' analysis says that the planet's climate simply can't be this sensitive to CO2 changes, however, or much more extreme events should have occurred at certain points in the past - and they did not. For instance, if the climate were sensitive enough that doubled CO2 could mean catastrophic warming, the low carbon levels seen 21,000 years ago should have resulted in an equally lifeless iceball planet.
"Clearly, that didn't happen," Schmittner says. "Though the Earth then was covered by much more ice and snow than it is today, the ice sheets didn't extend beyond latitudes of about 40 degrees, and the tropics and subtropics were largely ice-free – except at high altitudes. These high-sensitivity models overestimate cooling."
According to the new improved analysis, the most probable result as and when double CO2 occurs is actually a rise of just 2.3°C - only just above the 2°C limit which international climate efforts are seeking to stay within. Plainly there's no great need to fear a rise above 450 parts per million (ppm) CO2, as people currently do - in fact there's no likely prospect of getting near a 2°C temperature rise for a century or more at present rates of CO2 increase (rising about about 2 ppm/year at the moment from a level of 390-odd). And Schmittner and his colleagues' results show a much tighter grouping of possible futures, too, so the scope for way-out doomsday scenarios is hugely reduced.
The Australian quotes Schmittner as saying: "Now these very large changes (predicted for the coming decades) can be ruled out, and we have some room to breathe and time to figure out solutions to the problem."
The new study is published in top-ranking boffinry journal Science. The research was funded by the US National Science Foundation.
Doubled CO2 means just 1.9°C warming, say Norwegian researchers (Link) By Lewis Page • Get more from this author
Posted in Science, 25th January 2013 18:02 GMT
New research produced by a Norwegian government project, described as "truly sensational" by independent experts, indicates that humanity's carbon emissions produce far less global warming than had been thought: so much so that there is no danger of producing warming beyond the IPCC upper safe limit of 2°C for many decades.
“In our project we have worked on finding out the overall effect of all known feedback mechanisms,” says project manager Terje Berntsen, who is a professor at the University of Oslo’s Department of Geosciences and a senior research fellow at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo (CICERO).
“We used a method that enables us to view the entire earth as one giant ‘laboratory’ where humankind has been conducting a collective experiment through our emissions of greenhouse gases and particulates, deforestation, and other activities that affect climate.”
Berntsen and his colleagues' results derive in large part from taking account of the way that global temperatures have remained flat for the last fourteen years or thereabouts, instead of climbing as they ought to have done with increased carbon levels.
“The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity," explains the prof.
“We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming."
At the moment levels of CO2 stand at around 395 parts per million (ppm), climbing at around 2 ppm each year and accelerating. In pre-industrial times the levels is reckoned to have been 280 ppm. Depending on various factors, the amount of atmospheric CO2 might have doubled to 560-odd ppm around the year 2050.
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that would be disastrous as it would probably mean 3°C warming or more: and the IPCC considers that anything above 2°C means terrible consequences for humanity. Thus the organisation has long sought to limit atmospheric CO2 at 450 ppm, though this is regarded as a lost cause by many.
But Berntsen and his crew say that analysis is much too pessimistic. They consider that the likeliest result from doubled carbon (which would actually occur some decades after the doubled level was reached) would be just 1.9°C - within the IPCC target. According to the Research Council of Norway, the government arm which funded the new research:
When [the] researchers instead calculate a probability interval of what will occur, including observations and data up to 2010, they determine with 90% probability that global warming from a doubling of CO2 concentration would lie between 1.2°C and 2.9°C.
This maximum of 2.9°C global warming is substantially lower than many previous calculations have estimated. Thus, when the researchers factor in the observations of temperature trends from 2000 to 2010, they significantly reduce the probability of our experiencing the most dramatic climate change forecast up to now.
Other recent research has suggested warming of this sort with doubled CO2, but so far the IPCC and the warmist-alarmist community generally has been reluctant to accept the new findings. However the state of the accepted science is beginning to change, with Britain's Met Office lately revising its forecasts of warming sharply downwards.
Renowned Swedish climate boffin Caroline Leck, who was not involved in the research, commented:
“These results are truly sensational. If confirmed by other studies, this could have far-reaching impacts on efforts to achieve the political targets for climate.”
The Research Council's announcement of the new results can be read here.
Comment The argument will still be made that carbon emissions should be reined in sooner or later, as eventually even in professor Berntsen's forecast possibly-dangerous warming might result should emissions carry on unchecked for the long term.
However, even the previous IPCC imminent doom scenario completely failed to produce any serious action (apart from some dishonest machinations which artifically force up electricity bills to pay for pointless windmills). With the recent gradual scientific acceptance - even among scientists who have spent their whole lives studying the subject - that global warming is simply much less significant than had been thought, the chance of anyone caring enough to take action is now even lower.
So now you accept human caused Climate Change. That's progress I guess!!
Originally posted by newf: So now you accept human caused Climate Change. That's progress I guess!!
Not so fast. It's not exactly progress, just fierobear flaunting his double standards for "evidence."
It's interesting fake skeptics like fierobear believe all the science is flawed, climate models are utter crap, data is tampered with, and scientists are fraudulent - unless it agrees with his inconsistent premise - then all the science is sound, the climate models are correct, data is untampered, and scientists are virtuous.
The study hasn't published ANY of their data for the public or other scientists to review like the BEST study did. It has not passed peer review and hasn't been published.
If you read the actual press release there's a major issue right off the bat:
quote
2000 figures make the difference When the researchers at CICERO and the Norwegian Computing Center applied their model and statistics to analyse temperature readings from the air and ocean for the period ending in 2000, they found that climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration will most likely be 3.7°C, which is somewhat higher than the IPCC prognosis.
But the researchers were surprised when they entered temperatures and other data from the decade 2000-2010 into the model; climate sensitivity was greatly reduced to a “mere” 1.9°C.
Up to 1999, the prediction is 3.7°C, with 2000-2010 data, it drops to 1.9°C. Considering the IPCC expects this value to be somewhere between 2 - 4.5°C, how does adding only 10 years of data cut the prediction in half to a result lower than the IPCC's lowest estimate?
The strongest factor in the discrepancy between 3.7°C and 1.9°C is El Nino and La Nina. The 1990's had strong El Nino events causing short term surface warming which biased the results high. The 2000's have had strong La Nina events causing short term surface cooling which biased the results low. This flat out tells you their model is way too sensitive to short term changes.
Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade…or Natural? January 21st, 2009 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
I’ve usually accepted the premise that increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are due to the burning of fossil fuels by humans. After all, human emissions average around twice that which is needed to explain the observed rate of increase in the atmosphere. In other words, mankind emits more than enough CO2 to explain the observed increase in the atmosphere.
Furthermore, the ratio of the C13 isotope of carbon to the normal C12 form in atmospheric CO2 has been observed to be decreasing at the same time CO2 has been increasing. Since CO2 produced by fossil fuel burning is depleted in C13 (so the argument goes) this also suggests a manmade source.
But when we start examining the details, an anthropogenic explanation for increasing atmospheric CO2 becomes less obvious.
For example, a decrease in the relative amount of C13 in the atmosphere is also consistent with other biological sources. And since most of the cycling of CO2 between the ocean, land, and atmosphere is due to biological processes, this alone does not make a decreasing C13/C12 ratio a unique marker of an anthropogenic source.
This is shown in the following figure, which I put together based upon my analysis of C13 data from a variety of monitoring stations from the Arctic to the Antarctic. I isolated the seasonal cycle, interannual (year-to-year) variability, and trend signals in the C13 data.
The seasonal cycle clearly shows a terrestrial biomass (vegetation) source, as we expect from the seasonal cycle in Northern Hemispheric vegetation growth. The interannual variability looks more like it is driven by the oceans. The trends, however, are weaker than we would expect from either of these sources or from fossil fuels (which have a C13 signature similar to vegetation).
Secondly, the year-to-year increase in atmospheric CO2 does not look very much like the yearly rate of manmade CO2 emissions. The following figure, a version of which appears in the IPCC’s 2007 report, clearly shows that nature has a huge influence over the amount of CO2 that accumulates in the atmosphere every year.
In fact, it turns out that these large year-to-year fluctuations in the rate of atmospheric accumulation are tied to temperature changes, which are in turn due mostly to El Nino, La Nina, and volcanic eruptions. And as shown in the next figure, the CO2 changes tend to follow the temperature changes, by an average of 9 months. This is opposite to the direction of causation presumed to be occurring with manmade global warming, where increasing CO2 is followed by warming.
If temperature is indeed forcing CO2 changes, either directly or indirectly, then there should be a maximum correlation at zero months lag for the change of CO2 with time versus temperature (dCO2/dt = a + b*T would be the basic rate equation). And as can be seen in the above graph, the peak correlation between these two variables does indeed occur close to zero months.
And this raises an intriguing question:
If natural temperature changes can drive natural CO2 changes (directly or indirectly) on a year-to-year basis, is it possible that some portion of the long term upward trend (that is always attributed to fossil fuel burning) is ALSO due to a natural source?
After all, we already know that the rate of human emissions is very small in magnitude compared to the average rate of CO2 exchange between the atmosphere and the surface (land + ocean): somewhere in the 5% to 10% range. But it has always been assumed that these huge natural yearly exchanges between the surface and atmosphere have been in a long term balance. In that view, the natural balance has only been disrupted in the last 100 years or so as humans started consuming fossil fuel, thus causing the observed long-term increase.
But since the natural fluxes in and out of the atmosphere are so huge, this means that a small natural imbalance between them can rival in magnitude the human CO2 input. And this clearly happens, as is obvious from the second plot shown above!
So, the question is, does long-term warming also cause a CO2 increase, like that we see on in the short term?
Let’s look more closely at just how large these natural, year-to-year changes in CO2 are. Specifically, how much CO2 is emitted for a certain amount of warming? This can be estimated by detrending both the temperature and CO2 accumulation rate data, and comparing the resulting year-to-year fluctuations (see figure below).
Although there is considerable scatter in the above figure, we see an average relationship of 1.71 ppm/yr for every 1 deg C. change in temperature. So, how does this compare to the same relationship for the long-term trends? This is shown in the next figure, where we see a 1.98 ppm/yr for every 1 deg. C of temperature change.
This means that most (1.71/1.98 = 86%) of the upward trend in carbon dioxide since CO2 monitoring began at Mauna Loa 50 years ago could indeed be explained as a result of the warming, rather than the other way around.
So, there is at least empirical evidence that increasing temperatures are causing some portion of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2, in which case CO2 is not the only cause of the warming.
Now, the experts will claim that this is all bogus, because they have computer models of the carbon budget that can explain all of long term rise in CO2 as a result of fossil fuel burning alone.
But, is that the ONLY possible model explanation? Or just the one they wanted their models to support? Did they investigate other model configurations that allowed nature to play a role in long term CO2 increase? Or did those model simulations show that nature couldn’t have played a role?
This is the trouble with model simulations. The ones that get published are usually the ones that support the modeler’s preconceived notions, while alternative model solutions are ignored.
Do you guys actually read the nonsense you post in this thread?
And I thought making fun of Al Gore was easy..
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: ...the upward trend in carbon dioxide since CO2 monitoring began at Mauna Loa 50 years ago could indeed be explained as a result of the warming, rather than the other way around.
So, there is at least empirical evidence that increasing temperatures are causing some portion of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2, in which case CO2 is not the only cause of the warming.
Talk about grasping for straws, that's some seriously flawed logic. Rising temperatures are causing CO2 levels to rise! How? He doesn't explain, it's just magic! Empirical magic!
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Now, the experts will claim that this is all bogus because they have computer models of the carbon budget that can explain all of long term rise in CO2 as a result of fossil fuel burning alone.
"Experts will claim this is all bogus because they actually have evidence"
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-29-2013).]
Do you guys actually read the nonsense you post in this thread?
Please STOP MISQUOTING ME.
I NEVER said any of the things that you are quoting to me - I am just posting (and properly quoting I might add - somoething YOU can NOT SEEM TO F***ING FIGURE OUT) what was posted was WRITTEN by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
Argue the points with the ORIGINAL POSTER (he invites comments) instead of trying to pick a fight with me - talk about being childish, grow up already.
I normally don't give anyone a negative rating (I only have given pluses where people have helped), but you just keep doing this even though I have asked you many times not to - so you have now earned the first one I have given out - and it's not for your difference in opinion either (no one should get one for that).
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 01-29-2013).]
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: I NEVER said any of the things that you are quoting to me - I am just posting (and properly quoting I might add - somoething YOU can NOT SEEM TO F***ING FIGURE OUT) what was posted was WRITTEN by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
You cannot quote within a quote by limitations of the forum, therefore you received credit for what you posted in this forum. You are responsible for what you post in this thread. You should be prepared to answer questions and face criticism over what you post. This thread is not a personal "Denier" megaphone for you guys to be the personal parrot of bloggers like you seem to think.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Argue the points with the ORIGINAL POSTER … talk about being childish, grow up already.
I did bring up my points with the original poster, you. It's laughable you expect me to travel around the internet to debate an issue that was raised in this thread by you.
I did bring up my points with the original poster, you. It's laughable you expect me to travel around the internet to debate an issue that was raised in this thread by you.
You can address it to me and say "FROM THE LINK YOU POSTED, NOT AS A DIRECT QUOTE BY ME as I never said it - as for your "traveling around the internet," look at some of your previous post:
1) you sure have no problems "traveling around the internet" looking for these links to prove your point 2) many of them contain links that you EXPECT US TO GO AND READ 3) You asked us to post sources, and IF you bothered to go the web page and read it, the author clearly indicates:
quote
If an expert in this subject sees a major mistake I’ve made in the above analysis, e-mail me and I’ll post an update, so that we might all better understand this issue.
...although, since you are not an "expert", I guess you figure that maybe it is better to pick on me.
Now I am not going to waste my time further on this trying to explain it in 2 (or less) syllable words that you can understand...
Besides, what concern is it of yours what I "believe" or not - I am posting articles I come across so others can read them without having to search them out on their own so they can make up their own minds - if you want to make a counter post, fine, but don't insist I am original poster - I tend to give credit where credit is due and not plagiarize their work (even if YOU think it is ok).
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 01-29-2013).]
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: if you want to make a counter post, fine, but don't insist I am original poster
If you don't want to be credited for nonsense then simply don't post it. I'm well aware you didn't write it, but you did post it here, and you will be held accountable for the misinformation you are spreading.
Not so fast. It's not exactly progress, just fierobear flaunting his double standards for "evidence."
It's interesting fake skeptics like fierobear believe all the science is flawed, climate models are utter crap, data is tampered with, and scientists are fraudulent - unless it agrees with his inconsistent premise - then all the science is sound, the climate models are correct, data is untampered, and scientists are virtuous.
I know it's not likely progress (or an acceptance of mans contribution to man made climate change) on his part. He and others have shown time and time again they will blindly accept most anything that makes the rounds on the right wing blogs and regurgitate it here.
Thing is though that particular study concurs with most of the science and even agrees with the IPCC projections, though admittedly on the low end in terms of temperature increase.
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: It's interesting fake skeptics like fierobear believe all the science is flawed, climate models are utter crap, data is tampered with, and scientists are fraudulent - unless it agrees with his inconsistent premise - then all the science is sound, the climate models are correct, data is untampered, and scientists are virtuous.
The data HAS BEEN adjusted to death. It has been tortured until it confessed. The BEST study was largely adjustments on top of adjustments. HadCRUT - ADJUSTED (and the original data was ERASED). NASA GISS - ADJUSTED. BEST - ADJUSTED.
The climate models have been consistently WRONG.
The scientists have been caught truncating datasets when the temperature curve took an unfortunate turn away from their theory (MBH98).
quote
The study hasn't published ANY of their data for the public or other scientists to review like the BEST study did. It has not passed peer review and hasn't been published.
I didn't say it had. Just another interesting study.
As for BEST, they evidently couldn't get passed peer review in a journal with a reputation. They published in a new journal with NO reputation, although you delcared that it DID HAVE a reputation (with NO supporting information).
Oh I got it all right, the point is this is one study that says the temp increase MAY be lower than other studies have suggested (still well within the IPCC projections however) but does NOTHING to add to your argument (depending on which one you are going with today that is).
Probably time for you to change your title seeing that you finally agree with man made climate change though.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-29-2013).]
A 60-person Federal Advisory Committee (The "National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee" or NCADAC) has overseen the development of this draft climate report.
http://ncadac.globalchange.gov/ To simply access and read the draft report, please download the chapters below. However, if you would like to submit comments on the report as part of the public process, you will need to enter the “review and comment system” and register with your name and e-mail address and agree to the terms. All comments must be submitted through the review and comment system.
If you don't want to be credited for nonsense then simply don't post it. I'm well aware you didn't write it, but you did post it here, and you will be held accountable for the misinformation you are spreading.
The information I posted was written by someone who is a PHD (i.e. a scientist for those that can’t make the connection). Since you are claiming it is wrong, what are you credentials to say this guy is full of it?
You says it is misinformation, where is your documentation to prove it as such, or are you MERRILY just expressing YOUR opinion?
If it is just YOUR opinion, and what makes your opinion any more valid than anyone else's? If you want to discuss it, fine, but simply calling it nonsense or misinformation because it doesn't agree with you is childish.
If you are 'judging' a report as garbage, show me your proof, anything else is just argumentative (as they say in court, and would not be allowed or taken into consideration).
But I am probably just wasting my time, as you are starting to act like the spoiled little kid that isn’t getting his way and is just stomping around say everything is a lie.
If it is just YOUR opinion, and what makes your opinion any more valid than anyone else's? If you want to discuss it, fine, but simply calling it nonsense or misinformation because it doesn't agree with you is childish.
.
I would agree unless someone is an expert we are just opining using other peoples facts.
My own opinion is that the vast majority of experts in this field are in agreement and I choose to believe them.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-30-2013).]
Oh I got it all right, the point is this is one study that says the temp increase MAY be lower than other studies have suggested (still well within the IPCC projections however) but does NOTHING to add to your argument (depending on which one you are going with today that is).
Interesting that you say that...
quote
Abstract: Global temperatures measured since 2005 are incompatible with the IPCC model predictions made in 2007 by WG1 in AR4. All subsequent temperature data from 2006 to 2011 lies between 1 and 6 standard deviations below the model predictions. The data show with > 90% confidence level that the models have over-exaggerated global warming.
Originally posted by newf: I would agree unless someone is an expert we are just opining from using other peoples facts.
My own opinion is that the vast majority of experts in this field are in agreement and I choose to believe them.
That is fine, but please feel free to post documentation that disproves the recent information I posted. Simply saying a scientist is wrong is on ‘my side’ is no different than me telling you your scientist is wrong. As been mentioned many times before, science is continously learning new things with new discoveries.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 01-30-2013).]
oh wait....I originally started this blog to record my experiences in Ethiopia. It started out as a travel blog, but has now morphed mainly into a science blog on climate. All results, views, opinions and errors are entirely my own fault and in no way reflect any stance of any previous employer.
I'll still trust the vast majority of experts and scientists thanks!
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-30-2013).]
oh wait....I originally started this blog to record my experiences in Ethiopia. It started out as a travel blog, but has now morphed mainly into a science blog on climate. All results, views, opinions and errors are entirely my own fault and in no way reflect any stance of any previous employer.
Apparently you are incapable of clicking on the ABOUT tab on his web page.
But here is the full text since you seem capable of doing so (and like to 'cherry pick' a single sentence and leave out his education).
quote
I have a Bsc in Physics and a PhD in High Energy Physics and have worked as a research fellow at CERN for 3 years, Rutherford Lab for 2 years and the JET Nuclear Fusion experiment for 5 years. Thereafter I worked at the Joint Research Centre in Italy until April 2008 being seconded to the African Union in Addis Adaba Nov 2007 until March 2008. I originally started this blog to record my experiences in Ethiopia. It started out as a travel blog, but has now morphed mainly into a science blog on climate. All results, views, opinions and errors are entirely my own fault and in no way reflect any stance of any previous employer.
In April 2008 I co-founded a start up company osvision.com. Since then I also have found myself elected to be president of an Italian company running logistics at Colletta – a quite beautiful and unique medieval village in Liguria, Italy. I also now have more freedom to travel the world. I am basically a scientific sceptic but with a deep interest in other opinions and cultures.
I became interested in understanding the physics behind climate change after getting fed up with being told that the debate is over. Science is never a closed book and has a habit of turning round and biting those who think so. This explains why the blog now focusses on climate science.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 01-30-2013).]
That is fine, but please feel free to post documentation that disproves the recent information I posted. Simply saying a scientist is wrong is on ‘my side’ is no different than me telling you your scientist is wrong. As been mentioned many times before, science is continously learning new things with new discoveries.
Why would I need to disprove anything you post I can regurgitate studies like anyone else.... are you going to try and disprove all that I post as well?
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-30-2013).]
Why would I need to disprove anything you post I can regurgitate studies like anyone else.... are you going to try and disprove all that I post as well?
If it is relevant to post in question - I am not going to go around and say things like 'well it's not true, because I agree with the majority of the scientists' or 'because I say so'. Time to backup your argument.
Besides, if you want to convince me of the fact, wouldn't posting a counter points to my posts be more productive (vs. being argumentative or calling people stupid/uneducated/politically motivated/etc)?
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 01-30-2013).]
If it is relevant to post in question - I am not going to go around and say things like 'well it's not true, because I agree with the majority of the scientists' or 'because I say so'. Time to backup your argument.
I don`t follow? Back up my argument, it`s backed up by the science over and over again, every major scientific board that has been asked their opinion has agreed.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Besides, if you want to convince me of the fact, wouldn't posting a counter points to my posts be more productive (vs. being argumentative or calling people stupid/uneducated/politically motivated/etc)?
You must have me confused with someone else I haven't called you names not do I care to convince you of anything. Believe whatever you wish.
Originally posted by fierobear: The data HAS BEEN adjusted to death. It has been tortured until it confessed.
You sure seem to have no problem touting data you think supports your position. You constantly repeat the myth that "global warming stopped X number of years ago." You base that myth off just one data set, the CRU data set. A data set you should have the most problems with if you actually believe a lot of the stuff you post here.
How do you trust the CRU dataset when you believe "climategate" is evidence of scientists at CRU deliberately committing fraudulent acts to continue the "hoax that is global warming"?
How do you trust the CRU dataset when you believe the original raw data "hides" something?
How do you trust the CRU dataset when the ONLY data available is adjusted -quality controlled and homogenized data?
How about some consistency in the skeptical argument for a change. Although it's obvious if you maintained some consistency in your argument you would be forced to change your mind, therefore you have to maintain conflicting theories and positions and just avoid discussing them. There is no better evidence for this than what you posted at the end of this post. The evidence you said it would take to change your mind is the "missing" raw data from CRU - something that doesn't exist is required to change your mind. You knowingly set an impossible standard with a straight face. I haven't got a "pejorative" to do that nonsense justice.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: The BEST study was largely adjustments on top of adjustments. HadCRUT - ADJUSTED (and the original data was ERASED). NASA GISS - ADJUSTED. BEST - ADJUSTED.
You're showing how little you actually know about the BEST study, how data is "adjusted", and why it's "adjusted".
The BEST study was not "largely adjustments on top of adjustments." The BEST study used an entirely different method than NASA and CRU. Wherever "raw" data was available, BEST used it. The largest source of data in the BEST dataset comes from GHCN Daily. GHCN Daily does NOT contain adjustments. Of the ~36,000 stations in the BEST dataset, ~27,000 of them are from GHCN Daily. The majority of data in the BEST dataset is "raw" - the complete opposite of what you said. In the BEST data set raw data is given priority over the adjusted data.
Data is "adjusted" or homogenized for a few reasons. Over a long period of time stations are subject to measurement biases like new construction, urban development, air conditioners, station calibration issues, they moved the station to a new location, or swapped out instruments, etc. In the temperature record those changes are obvious as errors with large spikes in the record, referred to as discontinuity, that isn't evident in neighboring stations. Some stations have notes on these changes, referred to as metadata, that account for changes like instrument swaps or station moves, but not all stations have metadata. ALL groups who analyze temperature records use a process that finds discontinuities in the record and "adjusts" them to bias them towards neighboring records that are more reliable. They refer to this correction process as "homogenization."
This is what sets BEST apart. They came up with an entirely new method of analyzing large temperature sets that differ fundamentally from others. Rather than homogenizing the actual data, the BEST team's approach does two things: 1) They split the record of one station when an error is detected into two records and "two stations." It's really one station, but the records are treated separately. For instance, let's say a station is reporting normally and suddenly there's a massive spike in the record. The scientist doesn't know an air conditioner has been installed nearby, but he see's the error in the data itself. The BEST method "scalps" this record into two records, one record prior to air conditioner installation, the second record is after the air conditioner installation. The benefit of this approach is that you're not changing any values, therefore you don't have to keep track of "changes", you're just comparing them separately. Another benefit is errors and uncertainty due to adjustments actually make it to the final answer.
2) To account for the difference in reliability between records, each record is weighted separately. To reduce the effect of "bad" stations, all stations are treated as equal and an average is computed. Each station receives a weight. Stations that show large differences compared to nearby stations are given a larger weight. Compared to a trusted station, a poor station could receive a 1/26th weight. Going back to my previous example, the station would be considered "trusted" up to the breakpoint, the record that shows interference from the air conditioner receives a 1/26th weight that lowers the amount of "false warming" it reports to the final result. Weighting is done by software and not subject to human error or bias like adjusting individual records manually is.
If you think you've spotted a red flag in the method, consider this for a second. Here is what infamous Anthony Watts said about the BEST method prior to results: "I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet." Source.
CRU uses adjusted data by the National Weather Services. CRU doesn't adjust the data. This is one of many reasons that makes the "missing raw data from CRU" conspiracy so silly, the raw data is available from the same place CRU gets their adjusted data, but CRU doesn't hold the raw data. There is no "missing raw data" from CRU. The conspiracy that CRU deleted raw data to hide something is just based on ignorance.
NASA GISS uses adjusted data, GHCN, however they make additional adjustments for urban heat island effect.
The magnificent result of the BEST study: Despite GISS, CRU, NOAA, and BEST using entirely different methods and data they actually got results that agree with each other. The significance of that is the data hasn't "been adjusted to death" because the adjustments each group uses is different yet it makes no difference in the result! If the adjustments were biasing the results at all, each study wouldn't agree with each other. Data being "adjusted to death" is a complete myth, the adjustments do not impact the results.
Originally posted by fierobear: The climate models have been consistently WRONG.
Then maintain some consistency in your argument, explain why the article you posted is any different.
How is their model correct? What makes their result meaningful?
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: The scientists have been caught truncating datasets when the temperature curve took an unfortunate turn away from their theory (MBH98).
And they were exposed and their publisher required them to revise their methodology.
Where has the BEST study been exposed? It's been over 2 years and they published absolutely everything for anyone to download.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: I didn't say it had. Just another interesting study.
How does the public see if the results are reproducible if all the data is behind locked doors?
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: As for BEST, they evidently couldn't get passed peer review in a journal with a reputation.
They did get published in a journal with a good reputation and I'm glad they published in a journal that doesn't have a paywall. This is just a poor attempt for you to redefine your standard for "peer reviewed literature." A highly predictable attempt, too.
quote
Originally posted by fierobear: They published in a new journal with NO reputation, although you delcared that it DID HAVE a reputation (with NO supporting information).
Reputation, by definition, is an opinion. You asked me for evidence to support an opinion, which by definition, is impossible.
Further, I do not for a second believe you actually care about the publisher, you're just kicking and screaming because you can't discredit the science. You're inconsistent on your idea of a publisher with a good reputation anyway. For example, you think Nature is a "prestigious scientific journal" yet Nature published MBH98.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: You says it is misinformation, where is your documentation to prove it as such
If you actually read and think about what I replied you should be able to answer this on your own. He suggests something and provides no evidence for it. You're asking me to provide evidence that he provides no evidence. I have already done that: "Empirical magic!" The post you quoted is entirely conjecture.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-31-2013).]
I was going to provide a rebuttal on something you had posted before, but when I went looking for the post I could not find it - HOWEVER - I noticed that you have been deleting a few of your posts. Here is one for example: https://www.fiero.nl/forum/F...057033-57.html#p2279
Why is that, was the information you posted completely wrong and you didn't want it to be used against you?
I thought you wanted this to be an open discussion, but then turn around and starts deleting posts??
At least when I make a mistake I man up and admit I screwed up - I don't go around deleting my post just in case there is something there that proven wrong as a result of new information (or such).
SECOND
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:
Do you guys actually read the nonsense you post in this thread?
And I thought making fun of Al Gore was easy.. "Experts will claim this is all bogus because they actually have evidence"
I guess you never heard of SARCASM.
THIRD
Now let's look at your BEST data that you always like to post about, here is a graph that you like to post of the ever increasing temperature:
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros:
Now, let us consider CO2 output, it is claimed by many at man's output is ever increasing - BUT the temperature increase is linear (actually 'slowing' down as shown in the graph YOU posted). Let's just say that man made CO2 is responsible and since it is increasing at a logarithmic rate, and *if* the temperature is tied to this (as is your argument and point) why is the temperature increase not following the CO2 concentration? Should it NOT be increase in scale to CO2 concentration since it is the main contributing factor?
Yes I know you will be bringing up the 'uncertainty' part once again with regards to that graph, but please do tell me since all "the data in in" with reference to the BEST study, why there should be ANY uncertainty in ANY of the years that data has be compiled for? The ONLY uncertainty should be for those 'predicted' years in the future.
In fact the recently released information about 2012 being the 9th warmest year indicates that there is a definite answer that they know how much the temperature has increased/or decreased vs the other years.
oh wait....I originally started this blog to record my experiences in Ethiopia. It started out as a travel blog, but has now morphed mainly into a science blog on climate. All results, views, opinions and errors are entirely my own fault and in no way reflect any stance of any previous employer.
I'll still trust the vast majority of experts and scientists thanks!
So you are willing to dismiss someone because they have changed their focus? Perhaps he has an outside interest and initial intention was to share his travels, but now has shifted this focus and is wishing to discuss his views of the environment. Tell me that through out your life you have NEVER shifted focus from one subject to another.
quote
Originally posted by newf: I don`t follow? Back up my argument, it`s backed up by the science over and over again, every major scientific board that has been asked their opinion has agreed.
Then perhaps you will share this science that refutes what I have posted in that specific thread then? It has been asked in this thread to post new info and studies into the fact. This has been done, should not new studies that disprove someone's current theory also not be posted. If new information is available should it NOT be used?
quote
Originally posted by newf: You must have me confused with someone else I haven't called you names not do I care to convince you of anything. Believe whatever you wish.
I was generalizing.
But you sure keep countering my posts trying to convince me otherwise (or tell me I am wrong) - or am I missing something?
quote
Originally posted by newf: If you look at the science and the consensus that is out there you would see that they are not claiming what you attribute to them.
I was going to provide a rebuttal on something you had posted before, but when I went looking for the post I could not find it - HOWEVER - I noticed that you have been deleting a few of your posts.
If you pay attention to the date and time it was posted and edited, you'll see it was an double post. I actually avoid deleting anything I've posted to the level that I do not edit posts after 24 hours or after someone has replied, whichever comes first. There is only one occasion I can recall in this thread that I edited after 24 hours and after someone replied, and it was to swap a word out with the correct one, not to delete.
If you actually had something to rebuttal then keep looking, it's still there. Of course you probably just ran across my double post edit and jumped to a ridiculous conclusion in order to attack me with a completely fabricated assumption.
But we can put that to rest pretty easy. What were you going to rebuttal? I'll help you find it.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: SECOND
I guess you never heard of SARCASM.
I have no idea what you mean by this. You sarcastically posted nonsense?
Provide some context.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: Now, let us consider CO2 output, it is claimed by many at man's output is ever increasing - BUT the temperature increase is linear (actually 'slowing' down as shown in the graph YOU posted). Let's just say that man made CO2 is responsible and since it is increasing at a logarithmic rate, and *if* the temperature is tied to this (as is your argument and point) why is the temperature increase not following the CO2 concentration?
We've already covered this. Ocean warming is where 90% of the warming is occurring, NOT just surface temperatures. You cannot look at surface temperatures alone and ask the questions you are: Source. Peer reviewed and published, by the way.
How much has the ocean warmed in human relatable terms? It's the equivalent of 2 Hiroshima bombs a second. Every second. Since 1961. Source.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: why there should be ANY uncertainty in ANY of the years that data has be compiled for? The ONLY uncertainty should be for those 'predicted' years in the future.
This is one of those questions you should have researched a bit before you asked. I am not Google. However sometimes you do tend to ask good questions which show you're actually thinking about this so I will address the root of your question.
Here is the graph in question and here is it's source.
What you need to understand is the graph is measuring a *rate*. The rate is a *prediction.* If you wanted to measure the rate of the last two years, you could, but the uncertainty would be high because you're only using two data points. This is why it's necessary to go back 17 years or more to get an accurate reading. The more data you add the less uncertain you are about predicting the *rate*.
There is NOT significant uncertainty in the global average temperature in the BEST data set. The uncertainty comes from predicting the rate of warming. That's why NASA can say 2012 was the 9th warmest year on record, they're not predicting a *rate* and therefore not subject to that particular uncertainty.
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 01-31-2013).]
So you are willing to dismiss someone because they have changed their focus? Perhaps he has an outside interest and initial intention was to share his travels, but now has shifted this focus and is wishing to discuss his views of the environment. Tell me that through out your life you have NEVER shifted focus from one subject to another.
You want me to tell you why I trust the majority of scientists and scientific bodies over an internet blogger? Ummm OK.
Listen some crackpot or denial scientist "may" someday proven right but again I will trust the vast majority of scientists and major scientific bodies over the internet experts.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose:
Then perhaps you will share this science that refutes what I have posted in that specific thread then? It has been asked in this thread to post new info and studies into the fact. This has been done, should not new studies that disprove someone's current theory also not be posted. If new information is available should it NOT be used?
Share the science? Look at any major scientific bodies findings on Climate Change, the UN IPCC, the majority of Scientists conclusions, or more recently the BEST study. They will all refute what you are posting.
Yes all new information should be used and I trust the experts do so, I do not have the time not the expertise to make a conclusion about Climate Change from a single study or blog.
quote
Originally posted by Mickey_Moose: I was generalizing.
But you sure keep countering my posts trying to convince me otherwise (or tell me I am wrong) - or am I missing something?
Yeah you're missing something all right. (jk)
Anyways as I said I don't care what you choose to believe that doesn't mean I won't counter your links and opinion with my own.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 01-31-2013).]
A paper published today in the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres admits that state-of-the-art climate models exaggerate alleged warming from greenhouse gases, finding the models "overestimate the observed temperature change" in comparison to historical data since 1850. The authors also find the various models have a "large spread" or widely divergent temperature projections. The paper adds to hundreds of other peer-reviewed papers demonstrating the abject failure of climate models
Evaluating adjusted forcing and model spread for historical and future scenarios in the CMIP5 generation of climate models
Abstract: We utilize energy budget diagnostics from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) to evaluate the models' climate forcing since preindustrial times employing an established regression technique. The climate forcing evaluated this way, termed the adjusted forcing (AF), includes a rapid adjustment term associated with cloud changes and other tropospheric and land-surface changes. We estimate a 2010 total anthropogenic and natural AF from CMIP5 models of 1.9 ± 0.9 W m−2 (5–95% range). The projected AF of the Representative Concentration Pathway simulations are lower than their expected radiative forcing (RF) in 2095 but agree well with efficacy weighted forcings from integrated assessment models. The smaller AF, compared to RF, is likely due to cloud adjustment. Multimodel time series of temperature change and AF from 1850 to 2100 have large intermodel spreads throughout the period. The intermodel spread of temperature change is principally driven by forcing differences in the present day and climate feedback differences in 2095, although forcing differences are still important for model spread at 2095. We find no significant relationship between the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) of a model and its 2003 AF, in contrast to that found in older models where higher ECS models generally had less forcing. Given the large present-day model spread, there is no indication of any tendency by modelling groups to adjust their aerosol forcing in order to produce observed trends. Instead, some CMIP5 models have a relatively large positive forcing and overestimate the observed temperature change.
Climate sensitivity, one of the critical elements of alleged catastrophic warming, is looking more and more likely to be much lower than previously assumed. Although the article still engages in apologetics for human-caused warming, they are starting to admit that climate sensitivity may be overestimated.
“Worse than we thought” has been one of the most durable phrases lately among those pushing for urgent action to stem the buildup of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.
But on one critically important metric — how hot the planet will get from a doubling of the pre-industrial concentration of greenhouse gases, a k a “climate sensitivity” — some climate researchers with substantial publication records are shifting toward the lower end of the warming spectrum.
There’s still plenty of global warming and centuries of coastal retreats in the pipeline, so this is hardly a “benign” situation, as some have cast it.
But while plenty of other climate scientists hold firm to the idea that the full range of possible outcomes, including a disruptively dangerous warming of more than 4.5 degrees C. (8 degrees F.), remain in play, it’s getting harder to see why the high-end projections are given much weight.
This is also not a “single-study syndrome” situation, where one outlier research paper is used to cast doubt on a bigger body of work — as Skeptical Science asserted over the weekend. That post focused on the as-yet-unpublished paper finding lower sensitivity that was inadvisedly promoted recently by the Research Council of Norway.
In fact, there is an accumulating body of reviewed, published research shaving away the high end of the range of possible warming estimates from doubled carbon dioxide levels. Chief among climate scientists critical of the high-sensitivity holdouts is James Annan, an experienced climate modeler based in Japan who contributed to the 2007 science report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. By 2006, he was already diverging from his colleagues a bit. That’s when he wrote this:
Climate sensitivity is 3C…. Plus or minus a little bit, of course. But not plus or minus as much as some people have been claiming in recent years :-) The 3C, of course, is 3 degrees C. (5.4 degrees F.). The piece described the findings in his 2006 Geophysical Research Letters paper with Julia Hargreaves, “Using multiple observationally-based constraints to estimate climate sensitivity.”
He’s reinforced his view in light of the latest research and temperature patterns. On Jan. 27, he posted a comment on Dot Earth that in the last few days has resurfaced in many places around the Web. Here’s the most important line from Annan’s Dot Earth comment, in which he notes how recent events point to less warming from a given buildup of carbon dioxide:
[T]here have now been several recent papers showing much the same – numerous factors including: the increase in positive forcing (CO2 and the recent work on black carbon), decrease in estimated negative forcing (aerosols), combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable. A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5. And here’s an excerpt from “A Sensitive Matter,” a must-read post on his blog on Feb. 1:
So, sensitivity has been in the climate blogosphere a bit recently. Just a few days ago, that odd Norwegian press release got some people excited, but it’s not clear what it really means. There is an Aldrin et al paper, published some time ago – which gave a decent constraint on climate sensitivity, though nothing particularly surprising or interesting IMO. We thought we had sorted out the sensitivity kerfuffle several years ago, but it seems that the rest of the world still hasn’t yet caught up. As I said to Andy Revkin (and he published on his blog), the additional decade of temperature data from 2000 onwards (even the AR4 estimates typically ignored the post-2000 years) can only work to reduce estimates of sensitivity, and that’s before we even consider the reduction in estimates of negative aerosol forcing, and additional forcing from black carbon (the latter being very new, is not included in any calculations AIUI). It’s increasingly difficult to reconcile a high climate sensitivity (say over 4C) with the observational evidence for the planetary energy balance over the industrial era. If you care about this heated, consequential question, I encourage you to read Annan’s full post, which includes a section on a kind of tribalism that takes hold in situations like this and that, he says, could affect the conclusions of the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on the basics of greenhouse heating.
Of course, I may still be exhibiting “reverse tribalism” even by digging in here, but at least I’m stating that up front.
The reason it’s worth working to clarify what’s going on is that a lower climate sensitivity could substantially expand the timescale on which decarbonization of humanity’s energy menu would need to take place to blunt climate change. This could raise the odds of a Thornton Wilder ending to our “large-scale geophysical experiment.”
Over the weekend, William Connolley, the prickly and provocative author of the climate-focused blog Stoat, warned against overinterpretation of Annan’s comments by climate “septics” (his spelling). By e-mail I asked Connolley to offer his view of whether the high climate sensitivity estimates (often referred to as the “long tail” of the range of warming possibilities) still had weight. He replied:
Thanks for asking. My personal opinion is that the “long tail” should be given little weight. However, I should immeadiately say that I’m heavily influenced by James Annan — I’ve known him (online) for years and have come to trust his opinions. I’d also be strongly influenced by Gavin [Gavin Schmidt of NASA and the Realclimate.org blog], too, but I don’t think they greatly differ — but James can be rather more outspoken.
My feeling, on the “policy” side, is that the “long tail” remains rather convenient and people are reluctant to let it go.
James also identifies a possible problem in the way IPCC subgroups can come to “own” a particular area, and find outside opinions — even those clearly from within Science rather than the wackosphere — unwelcome. I don’t know how serious that is: again, I’d be inclined to trust James Annan on this, but that’s all I’d be doing. Perhaps an investigative journalist might take an interest. For the record, I am interested and have various queries out on how “consensus” is determined in the climate panel’s writing process (something that’s been explored here before).
And, once again, don’t get me wrong. Even with almost no chance of the high end of climate sensitivity estimates being right, the odds of substantial, prolonged and disruptive climate change (and changes in ocean chemistry) are still plenty high enough to justify a sustained push toward an energy menu that works for the long haul.
And given the inherent wide range of people’s feelings of risk, I also don’t expect the evolving science to eliminate debate over how fast to push and how much to spend.
Finally, it’s especially important to keep pushing toward new energy norms given how little humanity has done so far to shift from unfettered fuel burning.
Anyone who’s ever gotten an extension on a tough homework assignment or paper knows how that can work out — simply with a later all-nighter. (See a 2005 discussion of climate policy in the context of homework here.)
The stakes here are far higher than in potentially flunking out of a course.
For these reasons, I can understand why some climate campaigners, writers and scientists don’t want to focus on any science hinting that there might be a bit more time to make this profound energy transition. (There’s also reluctance, I’m sure, because the recent work is trending toward the published low sensitivity findings from a decade ago from climate scientists best known for their relationships with libertarian groups.)
I may have posted this a while back, but it is important and a good insight into the level of dishonesty and deception that the warmists will go to further their narrative and agenda. Honest people don't do this. When you are telling the truth, you don't need to do this bullshit.
NASA 's. James Hansen wanted to sell Congress on the whole AGW scare all the way back in 1988.. So they picked a day that was statistically hot, they opened all the windows the night before, and they turned off the air conditioning so that they could deceive Congress into believing that global warming was a coming disaster.
This could raise the odds of a Thornton Wilder ending to our “large-scale geophysical experiment.”
Could you please expand upon this idea for us?
Edit: Here is what the Revkin article is all about:
The "controversy" (i.e. the uncertainty) is concerned only with the "long-tail" portion of the probability curve that lies to the right of 4.5 degrees C warming. The scientific consensus on climate sensitivity to CO2 remains, as it has for years, in the 2C to 4.5C warming range.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 02-08-2013).]
I refuse to believe that scientists are overwhelmingly deceitful. It's not a 50-50 he said-she said thing concerning global warming. Scientists are pretty much in search of truth wherever it leads. The fact that an occasional "study" refutes global warming doesn't negate the vast arsenal of pro warming studies. If 10 African locals tell me not to swim in the river because it's full of crocodiles, the one guy who says they are wrong isn't going to easily convince me otherwise. You guys can argue the details all you like, but the truth isn't that difficult. The people who do this research for a living do not have jobs that depend on the outcome, as some like to claim. These studies would be funded and conducted anyway.
[This message has been edited by weaselbeak (edited 02-08-2013).]
I refuse to believe that scientists are overwhelmingly deceitful.
I agree. The overwhelming majority of the scientists of my acquaintance, some of whom have become personal friends, are among the most ethical people I know. But I realize that if the available evidence doesn't support your political position, such accusations are just about the only argument that remains available.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 02-08-2013).]
The people who do this research for a living do not have jobs that depend on the outcome, as some like to claim. These studies would be funded and conducted anyway.
That is so not true, people doing research (of any kind) must apply for the money. They have to put forth a proposal and then after it is reviewed by the people that the application was made to, it is decided if they which to forwarded him/her any money. Scientist don't just go into their job everyday and people throw money at them - they have to work for it.
quote
Originally posted by FlyinFieros: What you need to understand is the graph is measuring a *rate*. The rate is a *prediction.* If you wanted to measure the rate of the last two years, you could, but the uncertainty would be high because you're only using two data points. This is why it's necessary to go back 17 years or more to get an accurate reading. The more data you add the less uncertain you are about predicting the *rate*.
There is NOT significant uncertainty in the global average temperature in the BEST data set. The uncertainty comes from predicting the rate of warming. That's why NASA can say 2012 was the 9th warmest year on record, they're not predicting a *rate* and therefore not subject to that particular uncertainty.
Why do they 'have' to predicate the rate? You admit that NASA can say it is the xx year on record, but they can not extrapolate the warming rate from this data? They know a starting point, they know an end point, they know the time frame - simple math gives you the rate. The graph post shows the warming rate on a yearly bases (since 1975)
Graph in question:
There should be no uncertainty from historic year to year as they know what the temperature was in each year.
Prediction means something foretold or predicted; a prophecy. Hence uncertainty would exist, but it shouldn't for past events.
As for the ocean part, when they say that the global temperature has increased by xx%, does 'global' not mean net temperature (ie. all things account for)? This is the problem, if we are talking net increases - the net increase is linear, not following the logarithmic increase in CO2. If they are not talking about a 'net' increase, then can I not assume that they are simply leaving data out?
If they are going to talk about a net CO2 increase and not split it up into the different types of CO2, they should be doing the same for 'global' temperatures. If they want to split up land and ocean, it should be fair for them to split up the CO2 and do specific measurements of each type and what each source is responsible for each type instead of just grouping it all together.
[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 02-15-2013).]
That is the reason that land based air temperature monitoring stations are less accurate innately
With the oceans making up such a huge percentage, one needs to measure the only area which is directly affected by both ocean and land temps. That is the troposphere.
If you measure up there you come to very different conclusions that Best
"the failure of data to support amplification of warming in the troposphere is a serious problem for the credibility of climate models"
and this
"Early satellite measurements indicated far less warming in the troposphere than was found at the surface by land based thermometers. This caused challenges for climate modelers who predicted that tropospheric temperatures would rise with surface temperatures although the stratosphere would cool. As the years went by, adjustments and corrections of satellite measurement techniques reduced the gap between measured tropospheric and surface temperatures but a significant gap still remains. Radiosonde measurements seem to involve greater uncertainty and variability."
[This message has been edited by Arns85GT (edited 02-08-2013).]
Originally posted by fierobear: Cracks forming in the warmist/alarmist sphere?
Nope. I'd say they are cracks in the Denier argument, but that has long since shattered, debris swept up, and trashed. These results are compatible with "warmists" predictions, SINCE 1979.
This really is just the fake skeptics forgetting their own argument. Now the planet IS warming, man IS responsible, but it no need to worry, "it's no big deal."
Originally posted by fierobear: I may have posted this a while back, but it is important and a good insight into the level of dishonesty and deception that the warmists will go to further their narrative and agenda. Honest people don't do this. When you are telling the truth, you don't need to do this bullshit.
Oh the irony! A questionable "skeptic" complaining about cherry picking data and the dishonest tactics of politicians - after setting demonstrably impossible standards for changing their mind and flat out lying about non-existent "raw" data from CRU.
