What Do We Think About Climate Change

[bntii]

It's revealing to see how main stream skeptics address Jaworowski:

Steve McIntyre:
August 9th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
Out of all the issues to deal with CO2 measurements in ice cores are not something that particularly worry me and I do not believe that this evidence is "more shaky" than tree rings.

Posters keep bringing him up so need to be reminded....

• Beck and Jaworowski are ignored for cause. They are outer fringe and as a result cannot be discussed here by site rule. Citation of them as reliable sources means you cannot be taken seriously either.

Steve McIntyre:
October 7th, 2008 at 8:40 am
James G, this blog is about mainstream papers relied upon by IPCC. I've asked people not to discuss Beck and Jaworski here as, in my opinion, any issues that they may have raised have been adequately answered. I'm not interested in intervening myself into this sort of topic. But if I don't, this is interpreted elsewhere as acquiescence. So editorially I ask that you take this topic to some other venue.

"James, as Steve says, discussions on Beck and Jaworowski don't belong here. This is a serious blog on scientific matters."

"Jaworowski is a handwaving contrarian who is suggesting all sorts of errors in the ice cores but doesn't give any evidence that all these errors do really occur."

"As someone with long forgotten science training I was nearly taken in by Jaworowski. Can't say what it was that had my alarm bells ringing, but ringing they were. Wow, what a disservice to honorable skepticism."

"There are some results in the literature that are outrageously wrongheaded (for example Beck's trawling for old CO2 data, and the claim that humans are responsible for only 0.0000002% of CO2 emissions over GEOLOGICAL time) that one might suspect that they were planted by "the team" to discredit the skeptical movement.
Jaworowski falls for all of these, and adds a huge dose of paranoia, revealing that he lacks scientific judgment, and his skepticism is entirely one sided. At best he may have identified some second or third order effects in ice core gas concentrations, but discussion of these is mixed with egregious misunderstandings of the ice core data."

"Segalstad is a coauthor of Jaworowski, and the only thing either have proven is that you can find some scientist somewhere who will say just about anything."

[Jimbo1490]

Jaworowski's work is certainly interesting, but seems to lack sufficient stature at this time to call into serious question the provenance of nascent atmospheric CO2.

Christy's work, however, on the corresponding negative feedback, which arises from and more than offsets the positive feedback of CO2 with water vapor, does hold up, confirmed by (or confirming) Lindzen's 'Iris Effect'. As in any regulated system, there are still fluctuations around the 'set point' but these are not 'perturbations', per se. The fluctuations in a regulated system are not 'slop' or hysteresis either; that is something different. Rather it should be thought of as 'droop', a sort of proportionate 'micro response' to the stimulus, which would be much larger and unable to return to the un-perturbed state without the mitigating factor of the regulatory mechanism in place.

It also seems confirmed by the lack of warming in the tropics, and the overall lower observed climate sensitivity. The IPCC seems to consistently predict a climate sensitivity that is roughly double the actual observed sensitivity. This big negative feedback is missing from their GCM's which explains this discrepancy nicely.

Jimbo

[bntii]

Jimbo- thanks for the citations from the literature.

Question:

We seemed to have skip over the "Co2 lags temperature" argument as presented by pro AGW folks and gone right to observed evidence types of analysis. Any interest in revisiting the lag question? I understand this has very much to do with the secondary forcing argument we are currently covering but would still be interested in looking into the record, the lag discrepancy, and how the argument is presented by AGW..

Thanks

[Boston]

European Union leaders have reached a unanimous agreement
European leaders reach a deal on a package of measures to fight global warming.
The plan, agreed at a Brussels summit, sets out how 27 member-countries will cut carbon emissions by 20% by 2020, compared with 1990 levels.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the summit chairman, said something "quite historic" had happened in Brussels.

[Boston]

I'm curious
How is it

The empirical facts

How is it the empirical facts have changed so dramatically since just a few short months ago
when you guys were arguing there were no feed back cycles (loops)
that "feed back cycles involving co2 had been disproven"
that the "empirical facts" are somehow being ignored
and that there was "Plemty of scientific data that contradicts what I was saying" about the existence of climactic feed back
( please see referenced Post # 815 )

yet now you folks are arguing the for the existence of feed back loops

Post # 1577 from Jim; Christy's work, however, on the corresponding negative feedback, which arises from and more than offsets the positive feedback of CO2 with water vapor, does hold up, confirmed by (or confirming) Lindzen's 'Iris Effect'.

that some form of negative feed back loop will somehow save the detractors position in this (cough, gag, choke, spit) debate while at the same time tacitly admitting the existence of the positive feedback of co2 with water vapor

I like how we spin and weave from dead opposite "facts" while never admitting anything
something I noted really early on in this ( ahem ) debate

Post # 814 from Boston; ok so it sounds like we are done arguing that there is no relationship between co2 and warming and are now questioning the nature of the relationship
while somehow avoiding admitting there is a relationship
kinda makes me wonder why Im having this conversation

I will note excerpts from the previous conversations

Boston
Senior Member

Join Date: Jul 2008
Rep: 103 Post # 814 Posts: 222
Location: Denver Co

in summary
it is not relevant what green house gas begins the cycle of destruction
any green house gas will do
we have plenty of evidence of relatively small green house gas eruptions altering the chemistry of the atmosphere by some small amount
a percent or two
that coincide with the start of a run away green house feed back cycle
and results in additional green house gas’s being produced
one of which we can easily measure in the fossil record
co2

Jimbo1490

Join Date: Jun 2005
Rep: 185 Post # 815 Posts: 475
Location: Orlando, FL

This is the part that has been disproven; CO2 does not participate in some sort of feedback loop

Not that any of this will affect you beliefs/opinions one iota, for you are a true believer. The empirical facts have long ago ceased to be important to you

Jimbo

and this again from

Jimbo1490
Senior Member

Join Date: Jun 2005
Rep: 185 Post # 818 Posts: 475
Location: Orlando, FL

The thing is there's PLENTY of scientific data that contradicts what you are saying, in fact the preponderance of the EMPIRICAL data cuts against AGW alarmism.

have a great day
and please at least try and keep the BS consistent
enjoy
B

oh and concernign Post # 818
were is the "plenty of scientific data" that refutes Chrisy's work on feed back
Ild love to see you drag it out of the commode and use it to argue with yourself
;-)

I think we have covered Christy's waffling sufficiently
Post # 1566, 1546, 1558, 1553, 1540

[Guillermo]

Originally Posted by bntii

It's revealing to see how main stream skeptics address Jaworowski....

Thomas, thanks for bring in this information on Jaworowski.


Now, as you quote McIntyre's blog, can you admit not all blogs are to be discarded in this debate?

Originally Posted by bntii

"James, as Steve says, discussions on Beck and Jaworowski don't belong here. This is a serious blog on scientific matters."

Cheers.

[Boston]

I think the real question is
should we be quoting reputable sources
rather than ones that have literally in the case of the dissenting view
been dragged into scientific ethics court and found innocent by reason of ignorance

if a blog has a climatologist as an author and that author is in good standing in the scientific community then that literature would seem admissible

if a blog is reiterating a ruling of some governing body then that reiteration seems admissible

if a scientific journal not just some industry rag is being quoted in a blog then that quote would seem admissible

if the blog was blatant industry spin or flagrant opinion then no
not admissible

e gads are we actually after 106 pages going to develop some rules here

[Guillermo]

Thomas and Jim,
I would like to come back again on the FACTS debate. Do you agree on the following?
- Earth has not warmed since 1998 and has cooled down in 2007 and 2008.
- There are no traces of tropical tropospheric warming.
- Sea level is not rising (if at all) at the pace predicted by doomsday prophets.
- Artic sea ice extension is growing again in 2008.
- Antartic sea ice has been growing for several years and is presently at a maximum.
...............


Cheers.

[TeddyDiver]

Originally Posted by Guillermo

- Antartic sea ice has been growing for several years and is presently at a maximum.

Larsen Ice Shelf A&B maybe not counted?

[Boston]

all these questions have been answered in the IPCC fourth assessment report

- Earth has not warmed since 1998 and has cooled down in 2007 and 2008.
- There are no traces of tropical tropospheric warming.
- Sea level is not rising (if at all) at the pace predicted by doomsday prophets.
- Artic sea ice extension is growing again in 2008.
- Antartic sea ice has been growing for several years and is presently at a maximum.

thousands of scientists specializing in climate sciences have come together and determined through the consideration of vast quantities of data the following
as published in the fourth assessment IPCC 2007

“Antarctic sea ice shows no significant overall trend, consistent with a lack of warming in that region.”

Sea level rose at an average rate of about 1.8 mm/year during the years 1961-2003.

“Eleven of the twelve years in the period (1995-2006) rank among the top 12 warmest years in the instrumental record (since 1850, towards the end of the Little Ice Age).”

actually sea level is rising faster than the IPCC predicted



in addition I think it prudent to note

“1998 was an exceptionally warm year because of the strong El Nino event. Variability from year to year is expected, and picking a specific warm year to start an analysis is "cherry-picking"; if you picked 1997 or 1999 you would see a sharper rise. Even so, the linear trends since 1998 are positive.”

Lower levels of the troposphere are warming; but measuring the exact rate has been an uncertain process, particularly in the satellite era (since 1979). Readings from different satellites need to be tied together, and each has its own problems with orbital decay and sensor drift. Two separate analyses show consistent warming, one faster than the surface and one slightly less. Within the uncertainties of the data, there is no discrepancy that needs to be dealt with. Information from balloons has its own problems but the IPCC concluded this year: "For the period since 1958, overall global and tropical tropospheric warming estimated from radiosondes has slightly exceeded surface warming".

Singer and Schmidt interview IPCC findings 2007 BBC
( seems reasonable that Quotes from respected climate scientists should be admissible )



and this from the National Snow and Ice Data Center
its pretty easy to see whats happening to the global average polar ice extent



it is also important to realize that ice thickness is key to any consideration of ice coverage
( I am looking for a more recent graph of the thickness trends than this next outdated bit; but for more recent data there is a ton of crap to dig through, working on it )







in addition it was noted
also from NSIDC

Examination of the long-term satellite record dating back to 1979 and earlier records dating back to the 1950s indicate that spring melt seasons have started earlier and continued for a longer period throughout the year (Serreze et al. 2007). Even more disquieting, comparison of actual Arctic sea ice decline to IPCC AR4 projections show that observed ice loss is faster than any of the IPCC AR4 models have predicted (Stroeve et al. 2007).

in summary

- Earth has not warmed since 1998 and has cooled down in 2007 and 2008.

no; the earth on average has warmed since 1998

- There are no traces of tropical tropospheric warming.

no; there are definetly traces of tropospheric warming

- Sea level is not rising (if at all) at the pace predicted by doomsday prophets.

no; the measured level of sea rise is greater than that predicted

- Artic sea ice extension is growing again in 2008.

yes; the Arctic sea ice grows and shrinks every year about this time; however it is far bellow historic norms

- Antartic sea ice has been growing for several years and is presently at a maximum.

no; presently Antarctic sea ice is on the decline reaching a minimum in February although yearly averages have been on a slow increase in this region this increase when considered in the global model still results in a net loss of overall ice coverage

[Jimbo1490]

More relevant stuff, as always:

http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~dbunny/resear...ol_summary.pdf





SOLAR ACTIVITY DIMINISHES; RESEARCHERS PREDICT ANOTHER ICE AGE

Michael Asher www.dailytech.com
February 9, 2008

Global Cooling comes back in a big way

Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."
Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, says it may be happening again. Overseeing a giant radio telescope he calls a "stethoscope for the sun," Tapping says, if the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather.
During the Little Ice Age, global temperatures dropped sharply. New York Harbor froze hard enough to allow people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island, and in Britain, people reported sighting eskimos paddling canoes off the coast. Glaciers in Norway grew up to 100 meters a year, destroying farms and villages.

But will it happen again?
In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov predicted the sun would soon peak, triggering a rapid decline in world temperatures. Only last month, the view was echoed by Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. who advised the world to "stock up on fur coats." Sorokhtin, who calls man's contribution to climate change "a drop in the bucket," predicts the solar minimum to occur by the year 2040, with icy weather lasting till 2100 or beyond.
Observational data seems to support the claims -- or doesn't contradict it, at least. According to data from Britain's Met Office, the earth has cooled very slightly since 1998. The Met Office says global warming "will pick up again shortly." Others aren't so sure.
Researcher Dr. Timothy Patterson, director of the Geoscience Center at Carleton University, shares the concern. Patterson is finding "excellent correlations" between solar fluctuations, a relationship that historically, he says doesn't exist between CO2 and past climate changes. According to Patterson. we shouldn't be surprised by a solar link. "The sun [is] the ultimate source of energy on this planet," he says.
Such research dates back to 1991, when the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study showing that world temperatures over the past several centuries correlated very closely with solar cycles. A 2004 study by the Max Planck Institute found a similar correlation, but concluded the timing was only coincidental, as the solar variance seemed too small to explain temperature changes.
However, researchers at DMI continued to work, eventually discovering what they believe to be the link. The key factor isn't changes in solar output, but rather changes in the sun's magnetosphere A stronger field shields the earth more from cosmic rays, which act as "seeds" for cloud formation. The result is less cloud cover, and a warming planet. When the field weakens, clouds increases, reflecting more light back to space, and the earth cools off.
Recently, lead researcher Henrik Svensmark was able to experimentally verify the link between cosmic rays and cloud formation, in a cloud chamber experiment called "SKY" at the Danish National Space Center. CERN plans a similar experiment this year. Even NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies -- long the nation's most ardent champion of anthropogenic global warming -- is getting in on the act. Drew Shindell, a researcher at GISS, says there are some "interesting relationships we don't fully understand" between solar activity and climate.

Jimbo

[Jimbo1490]

More:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv9NTKL9ONE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfCFZ7zNWbs

Jimbo

[Guillermo]

Jim,
At http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv9NTKL9ONE it says the video is no longer available

[Jimbo1490]

Guillo,
I just clicked on it from your own post and it worked. Maybe try again later?

Jimbo

[Boston]

from the BBC today

The government has committed the UK to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by the middle of this century.

Climate Change and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said the current 60% target would be replaced by a higher goal.

He told MPs the government would not "row back" on green issues in the light of the current economic crisis.

He also warned the big energy companies they face a crackdown on "unfair" pricing policies in his first statement as head of the new department.

Mr Miliband told MPs the government accepted all the recommendations of the report from Lord Turner's Committee on Climate Change.

sorry folks
am pretty busy this weekend but I'll read all soonest
B