What Do We Think About Climate Change

Yeah and that remarkable change occurred after 1950, NOT 1850 or 1800. Yet CO2 was increasing all the way back in 1750. This is the 'hundreds of years' I was referring to earlier in the thread. I would have done the research and answered earlier if you'd just kept after me. I got distracted by you-know-who's childish rants. I won't let it happen again, I promise


So if you still want to attribute that early CO2 rise to anthropogenic releases, you have to select a DRASTICALLY reduced 'threshold of significance, one which is totally unsupportable in science, so this is not hair splitting. Our emissions were 1/2250, more than 3 orders of magnitude smaller, than present (referenced to year 2000) That early trend must have been due to natural causes! Now you can make a pretty good case (not 'air tight', but pretty good) for the post 1950 trend knee being largely due to anthropogenic emissions, but you're on very thin ice with that earlier trend.

Face it: Atmospheric CO2 was on an upward trend BEFORE human industry began releasing it in quantities that matter. This is a FACT.

Never did I say that the 1950's started a warming trend; go back and read it yourself. I posted that the 1950's were the beginning of climatologically significant CO2 releases. I have stated consistently on this thread that there is no causality between rising CO2 levels and rising temperatures, even in the shorter time scales. The one and only 'test case' we have for that 'short time scale' causality is the 20th century, and as I've stated REPEATEDLY, the ~40 years immediately following the major anthropogenic CO2 releases began, the climate cooled.

All you have to do is go back and read scientific and even news media literature from that era; it was full of stories of how we are going into another ice age. Some people believed that then because the trend was down, down down for about 40 years straight. No plausible explanation for this cooling trend has yet emerged which still allows us to believe that CO2 drives temperatures upward.

The lack of causality between upwardly trnding CO2 and temperature in the paleoclimate is well documented as is the lack of causality in the 20th century. I count this a FACT.

Oh, I've documented it. Here's re-post of that documentation and some more documentation:


Professor McKitrick gave testimony to the Committee in June 2008. http://ross.mckitrick.googlepages.com/#new

Excerpted from the McKitrick Report, cited above:

"To summarize thus far, all the models which have been used for the IPCC and CCSP reports embed
parameterizations that yield the following predictions:

» The troposphere over the tropics should exhibit greater warming (more than double the rate) than
the troposphere over the polar regions.

» The effects induced by greenhouse gases are so large relative to other forcings (positive and
negative) that the total pattern is predominantly a reflection of the contribution of greenhouse
gases.

» The tropical troposphere should have been heating up at a rate of at least 0.25 oC/decade over the
past few decades in response to historical greenhouse gas emissions. A middle-range warming
projection scenario in the IPCC report predicts warming of about 0.5 oC/decade should now be
observable in the tropical mid-troposphere...

(This is the graph apropos to the paragraph below): View attachment HadAT2Radiosond data.doc

From the color coding one can readily tell that, like the satellites, this balloon record exhibits no
overall warming pattern in the tropical troposphere: instead there is slight cooling at lower altitudes,
and minimal warming at the upper altitudes. The tropospheric warming is at a lower rate than in the troposphere as a whole and lower in comparison to the North Pole region. The CCSP text (fn 66, p.
115) points out that this data span includes the ‘end-point effect’ of the powerful 1998-1999 El Nino
so the absence of tropical tropospheric warming is an even more conspicuous discrepancy with the models."


View attachment 27503

Another nice graph of tropospheric temp anomaly.
This is the data for the above graph, which shows tropospheric temps. Note the LACK of a significant warming trend.

BTW, the word is 'obfuscation' as in "The climate cooled for the 40 years after significant anthropogenic CO2 releases began because of..... VOLCANOES" Contrary to what you posted in rebuttal, this discrepancy has NEVER been resolved; the data for tropospheric temps are not flawed, there is just no warming to observe. You can easily Google up a hundred articles, papers, graphs etc. abut this; it's getting a lot of attention right now. Google the Douglass paper "A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions".

Look, even AGW alarmists are admitting that the lack of warming in the tropical troposphere is a FACT, it's just that their (very predictable) response is to postulate and even more complex theory(obfuscation) as to why this GLARING CONTRADICTION to their earlier predictions is still somehow consistent with 'dangerous global warming! Can't you see that fallacy of this?

Now why can't we enter the lack of warming in the tropical troposphere as a 'FACT":?:



Jimbo

 

Lets try this one more time:

You have mentioned this a number of times and have yet to document it.

Please document fully the ideal in the scientific literature that Co2 was rising before we started altering the carbon cycle.

Please document this. If you can, it would make this whole conversation somewhat odd....

Are you reading the citations I am providing?

 

This represents one of those ugly black marks against the AGW crowd; their abrogation of peer review via release of critical algorithms and adjustments. The 'other temperature observations' referred toabove are the surface measurements, which Mr Hansen adjusts, inexplicably, UPWARD, despite the obvious pre-existing upward bias of the data gathering network. Instead of holding this up as some kind of 'triumph of science', Thomas, you should hang your head in shame that your gurus continue to behave this way. This is a set of 'adjustment' algorithms that have not been explained or released, yet are absolutely critical to the debate. Oh yeah; the debate is already over. That must be why.

Have you ever even bothered to look here? With over 50% of the stations rated as '+2*C', and 13% as '+5*C', how in the HELL can you justify 'adjusting' the surface data UPWARDS as Hansen does??!!

For shame, for shame.

You should thank god above for the skeptics; you've demonstrated your COMPLETE INABILITY to sniff out a rat in the cupboard on your own. My god, man; you still want to go back defend MBH-98 again!

Un....Believable

Jimbo

 

Dude,

Look at you own post #1503, third graph: it's right in front of you! 40 freaking years of lower temps from 1940-1980! Aren't the previous and quite widespread predictions of the coming of 'another ice age' circa the late 70's enough evidence for you? Are you saying that whole episode NEVER HAPPENED?

WTF???

Jimbo

 

And your post from two months ago:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

my reply:

Jimbo
"Finally, we note that a minor data processing error found in the GISS temperature analysis in early 2007 does not affect the present analysis. The data processing flaw was failure to apply NOAA adjustments to United States Historical Climatology Network stations in 2000-2006, as the records for those years were taken from a different data base (Global Historical Climatology Network). This flaw affected only 1.6% of the Earth's surface (contiguous 48 states) and only the several years in the 21st century. As shown in Figure 4 and discussed elsewhere, the effect of this flaw was immeasurable globally (~0.003°C) and small even in its limited area. Contrary to reports in certain portions of the media, the data processing flaw did not alter the ordering of the warmest years on record. Obviously the global ranks were unaffected. In the contiguous 48 states the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged. In the current analysis, in the flawed analysis, and in the published GISS analysis (Hansen et al. 2001), 1934 is the warmest year in the contiguous states (not globally) but by an amount (magnitude of the order of 0.01°C) that is an order of magnitude smaller than the uncertainty."
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/

Three thousandths of one percent......
Yes that is a truly stunning deceit

In case you missed it:



If you look really carefully you can see the "fraud"- it's the green line directly under the correct data..

The most interesting part about this whole bit is why you are now questioning heating?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

No No Thomas, THAT'S not the fraud AT ALL!! They DID IT! THEY DUPED YOU!!!! You see, the REAL 'GOOF' page was taken down and replaced by the one you just posted! It's all well documented at Climateaudit. He saved the old page, as did a few others, which is the only way it survived. Realclimate followed suit right behind them. Shame, shame.

Can you still pick out the ~40 year cooling trend from ~1940-1980!

My post #1495 documented rising CO2 before 1800 with reliable estimates and graphs. You can either accept it or reject it, but there is your documentation.

And you're still totally OK with Hansen's adjusting the raw data from the surface stations UPWARD, then refusing to explain WHY, given the state of that network, soon to be fully documented? How can you still believe in your own ability to spot FRAUD if you can't spot this one?

Jimbo

 

Yes indeed Steve documented the whole thing and summarized as follows:

"So while the Hansen error did not have a material impact on world temperatures, it did have a very substantial impact on U.S. station data and a "significant" impact on the U.S. average. Both of these surely "matter" and both deserved formal notice from Hansen and GISS."

A tempest in a tea kettle...

He overstates "significant" impact in the US data set BTW and he is basically complaining that he should have been alerted before the data set was improved.

US Data:




Note the nearly fully obscured old data set? That means once again that the old and new set are nearly identical.

 

E gads G you may be right
readers may be checking in thinking they are getting scientific information
I think it only fare to the discussion that we correct that misunderstanding
It would be prudent of you to post the following as well with each of your subsequent posts

Readers take note
warning
The information presented in many of these posts has been proven to be no more than industry spin; published not in scientifically accredited publications, but in whats known as industry rags published by the oil and gas community. There is a direct comparison to what is happening on this thread and what the Tobacco industry did during its disinformation campaign
this warning will be repeated from time to time so that unwary readers are made aware
thank you B


I'd like to mention a Professor Robert Neel Proctor
He coined the term "agnotology" to describe the study of culturally-induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data

from his paper at Tobacco Control 2006;15(Supplement 4 ):iv117-iv125; doi:10.1136/tc.2004.009928
Copyright © 2006 by the BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.

not sure if anyone here has ever been peer reviewed and published but on second page of your paper you are required by accredited bodies to list things like

Editor
Copyright
Funding
Competing interests

the Funding part should read something like this

and the competing interests part

the hole point being to ensure that no biased data or pseudoscience gets passed off as real science

I would note the refusal of these agnotologists to admit even the most basic of accepted facts in there discussions
for instance that 97% constitutes a consensus
I chose that number because thats the percentage of climate scientists who believe the climate is warming


post #1502 and countless other posts
showed the data presented was little more than industry disinformation

very nearly every resource advocated by the dissenting opinion is found out to be industry biased

oh and G cmon it was pretty funny
we all take our share of ribbing around here
so lets just move on

 

Owwww, My head hurts and I am confused.... I plead for one post summarising and postulating a warming scenario and one post summarising the cooling postulation with references and a header of either "Warming" of "Cooling" top centre of each post so I can know which is arguing for which witch?... otherwise quite interesting if confusing for 'bystanders'?......

 

and that is precisely why posted the warning
its important for regular people who have real questions to realize a significant portion of whats being argued here is basic industry disinformation

maybe a better warning would read


readers be aware
warning
There is a direct comparison to what is happening on this thread and what the Tobacco industry did during its disinformation campaign. The information presented in many of these posts has been proven to be no more than industry disinformaiton presented by pundits of the oil and gas community and in no way representing the views of the scientific community as a hole.
thank you
enjoy the discussion
B

 

Ok

Boston, Lets jump ahead on the controversy for a moment. I am most interested on your idea of a solution to warming, I'll admit to a bias about what this is about for the true believers of this global "Threat De jour". But if everyone from Nigerians to the Swiss became believers in this warming. What would be three things would you demand happen .... politically

If you like, I also would like to know if anyone has calculated or noted the increase in ariable land, thus increased greening, due to the rising "greenhouse" gasses. Think of all that permafrost in Siberia that may become a horrible, huge new breadbasket for more humans!

 

the first step in any solution is to realize we have made a mistake

Hi D
you know thats a great question
some of the greatest minds in the scientific community are yet to form a consensus as to the best approach
I certainly respect there understanding of the issues and await there latest recommendations
I can only say I hope we are not to far gone to fix this mess we seem to have created for ourselves
however if ICCAT is any indication of political action
we are in big trouble

your question about the permafrost and arable land is interesting
I think most of the permafrost land once thawed is far to marshy to be of much use, although that from years ago and to be fair Ild have to go look up some of the latest on the subject

arable land increase?
last I heard we're loosing arable land fast
just go look at whats happening in the valley's of southern California
look up soil husbandry and I think it will answer your question far better than I can
but all in all
the deserts are growing
the farm land is shrinking

three things I demand happen politically ?
I see a guillotine set at the ready for any who chose to answer that last
the first step in any solution is to realize a mistake had been made

thanks for breaking some new ground
B

 

Thomas,

Tempest in a teacup admitted, there's still the UNEXPLICABLE net upward adjustment to the surface temp data, when even the most cursory examination of that data gathering network strongly begs for a net DOWNWARD adjustment! The 'tempest' really only amounts to a change in the upward adjustment; the net direction is still basically WRONG!

On your newfound respect for MBH-98, remember that if ONE SINGLE PROXY data set is removed(the bristlecone pines), there is no net warming. Ditto for Briffa's 'new' recons; all hangs on what a few bristlecone pines did. This is clearly agenda driven science.

Jimbo

 

The best course of action question was covered way earlier in the thread, so this is not really a new direction but another re-tread. The most mature, coolheaded and well-documented solution I've seen so far is presented by Bjorn Lomborg in this lecture. I originally posted this more than a year ago.

Jimbo

 

Prioritys

Thanks very much Jimbo1490, The lecture you linked to was the most coherent look at the Global Warming threat I have ever seen. Suggested warming pales in comparison to other more fixable problems in the real world. I also advise everyone to see Bjorn Lomborg in this lecture at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dtbn9zBfJSs

I, only drop in on this thread about "the propaganda" when I am aggravated by its relentlessness. So to repeat your video find is a good thing.

Boston are you comfortable with your belief that increase in greenhouse gasses, only serve to reduce arable land ... globally?

Also, regarding the Guillotine, I think that the first political leader to implement the ultimate solution to stem imaginary global meltdown (confiscatory taxing of the capitalist) will meet its blade after a few years of the following economic depression sure to follow. He would probably be imortilized for a statement like, "let THEM take the hybrid bus" (while they themselves jetset and limosine around on our taxes)