What Do We Think About Climate Change

oh its freezing *** here
about no degree's out this morning

Jim were did you get this number from

Ild love to read the papers that determined that if you have em

G sunlight is the major player in the global climate game
taken together these two articles detail tracking analysis of deep ocean water masses and there fossil circulation patterns in regards to both sunlight and co2

folks, we have been over the following
can we move on to something a little more accurate

the previous is completely incorrect
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".
I can provide a detailed analysis of the issue if you need one

regards B

 

come on Jim
are you sure you want to go over obfuscation

its hard to have a realistic conversation if your going to go on making wild claims

why dont we begin a hole new way of communicating with a basic understanding of how science works
how it collects and collates data
how that data is considered and so on

once you understand that then we can move on to why science has determined global climate change to be an issue

my first point would be to try and explain that climate science is a group effort
a large number of people working together collecting data without prejudice

is everyone willing to accept that point


and if you know were the troposphere lies on this graph
you can clearly see numerous data
from various measurement techniques
and various researchers
clearly shows warming in the tropical troposphere


can we please please please stop making outrageous claims about what the data does and does not show

Global Climate Change is real and its happening now
thankfully
most people realize the dangers
B

 

A re-post of some graphed data, as it's clear someone hasn't been paying attention :



And some new stuff, pertinent to a recent post:

http://www.ssmi.com/papers/msu/A_Reanalysis_of_the_MSU_Channel_2_Tropospheric_Temperature_Record.pdf

An excerpt:

"Over the period from 1979 to 2001, tropospheric trends derived from a widely cited analysis of the Microwave
Sounding Unit (MSU) temperature record show little or no warming, while surface temperature trends based
on in situ observations show a pronounced warming of ~0.2 K decade^-1. This discrepancy between trends at
the surface and in the upper atmosphere has been a source of significant debate. Model predictions of amplification
of warming with height in the troposphere are clearly inconsistent with the available observations, leading some
researchers to question the adequacy of their representation of the water vapor greenhouse feedback.A reanalysis
of the MSU channel 2 dataset, with the objective of providing a second independent source of these data, is
described in this paper. Results presented herein show a global trend of 0.097 +/- 0.020 K decade^-1, generally
agreeing with the work of Prabhakara et al. but in disagreement with the MSU analysis of Christy and Spencer,
which shows significantly less (~0.09 K decade^-1) warming."

Interesting that the authors felt it necessary to distance themselves from the conclusions reached by Spencer and Christy, stating that their work shows "significantly less warming" when in fact their conclusions differ by a mere .007 K from this author's work.

And some more graphed data on the decided lack of warming in the tropical troposphere:



Anyone who approaches this subject without a preconceived conclusion can clearly see that there is nothing at all outrageous about asserting that there is no warming trend in the tropical troposphere anomaly, as AGW alarmist predicted there would be. Those who feel this assertion to be in error are invited to present their contradictory data.

Jimbo

 

What we think about climate change is that a 9.1% oil depletion rate will solve the problem before you can prove one way or the other. Solve for peak oil and you will solve for climate change. Lack of energy is a far clearer and much more present danger to large parts of the human population that climate change is... focus on that issue and you can resolve the other. Ignore peak oil, as we are doing, and ironically you will probably solve the CO2 issue but in a much nastier way.

 

Note that a recent post purporting to show warming in the tropical troposphere presented graphed data in support of that conclusion. The most alarming portions of that graphed data was based on a paper by authors Allen and Sherwood, the latest 'Greenhouse Problem Obfuscators", who took on the unenviable task of explaining away why the best satellite and balloon sourced temperature data we can compile shows no warming in the tropical troposphere. Their first order of business was to admit that the satellite and balloon data indeed really do show no warming trend and to further admit that this really is a problem for the theory of AGW via increased CO2.

After this, they kinda go off the deep end in their attempt to explain this glaring problem, rather than just admitting that greenhouse warming is not a good fit for recently observed warming. The gist of their paper is that they can deduce temperature using wind data better than a thermometer can! Thus they call into question the reliability of various satellite and balloon data sets, which data sets, I might add, have been proven highly reliable in a plethora scientific papers.

Furthermore, the methods used are not novel, as the authors imply, but were already employed by Robert Pelke Sr and two co-authors. Pelke furthermore rebuts Allen and Sherwood's conclusions in a recent paper.

To say the least, the idea that anemometers can measure temperature more accurately than thermometers is, well, a little controversial Those who would like to dig deeper into the details of why this idea is little more than another obfuscation, just another overcomplexification proffered by the AGW alarmists to reconcile the irreconcilable problems that result from the junk science of AGW via CO2/greehouse effect, are invited to follow these links:

http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/06/sherwood-allen-and-radiosondes.html
http://climatesci.org/2008/06/04/comments-on-the-science-in-the-nature-paper-by-allen-and-sherwood/

Jimbo

 

What do you climatologists make of this? - - - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/17/2448553.htm?section=justin

2 trillion tonnes of ice gone in 5yrs: NASA: - - - - By Dan Karpenchuk

NASA says it has satellite data that shows more than 2 trillion tonnes of land ice in Greenland, the Arctic, Antarctica and Alaska has melted in the past five years.

Scientists say the melting land ice has raised global sea levels by about 5 millimetres.

They say sea levels are also rising as water expands from warming.

Scientists say parts of the Arctic were nine to 10 degrees Celsius warmer this spring.

They also say warming in the far north is accelerating faster than anywhere else on the globe.

Experts say the pace of change is starting to outstrip the human ability to keep up.

Scientists also point to large amounts of frozen methane that is being released.

Methane is another potent greenhouse gas which could dramatically increase global warming.

 

Masalai

Greenhouse warming is supposed to warm the tropical troposphere first and most, NOT the poles. This part is incontrovertible. If you tweak the hypothesis and the models to show most of the warming happening at the poles first and most, many other empirical data becomes starkly anomalous.

Whether caused by methane, CO2 or water vapor, greenhouse warming should still look like greenhouse warming, that is, the tropical troposphere should warm first and most. Because we don't see that, we should come to the conclusion that what warming we observe IS NOT greenhouse warming, but warming from some other cause. If the AGW alarm crowd did not concur with this, they would not be working hard to reconcile this discrepancy, which in fact, they are.

Saying "we can't explain the observed warming any other way" does not increase the likelihood that the warming we observe is greenhouse warming, and furthermore these words should be translated "We don't know of any other cause for the observed warming at this time" as an admission that there almost certainly are causes for the warming that we have either yet to discover or properly understand and account for presently.

What we can observe right now with a high degree of certainty, is that the observed warming is not a 'good fit' for greenhouse warming, according to the definitions for said warming the AGW leaners have themselves posited and modeled with their GCM's.

Jimbo

 

obviously climate skeptics are wrong again with there latest round of disinformation
water vapor does not count for 96% of the greenhouse effect
and clearly there is supporting data concerning tropical tropospheric warming

I would urge the readers to be aware that much of the data presented by climate skeptics in this thread is basic disinformation designed to confuse what is overwhelming evidence in support of the consensus view of global climate change

detractors
must be getting tired of being proven wrong time and time again

I like how detractors dodge admitting they are deliberately misleading the readers with things like

which is just completely false
or

which the readers can clearly see there is by virtue of five of the six studies graphed in my previous

<--- example of a reprint


its also worthwhile to note that obfuscation is detractors making a patently false statement about the tropical troposphere and then showing a single data set of the lower troposphere as some kind of dodge to admitting they are wrong again

I would point out the following trends common in climate skeptic views that are more than obvious to the attentive reader

A ) climate skeptics statements are based on industry biased research 
 similar to the type of disinformation printed by the Tobacco
industry concerning the health risks of smoking

B ) skeptics claims of a conspiracy among thousands of independent scientific studies are unfounded whereas there is little doubt that the oil and gas industry has funded a disinformation campaign 



C ) climate skeptics understanding of anomalous and individual data vs preponderance of data seems tenuous at best and insist on repeating misleading or outright false data provided by mostly industry sources instead 



D ) climate skeptics have shown themselves to be totally unwilling to admit even the most obvious of errors thus showing the rest of us that the argument they present is not based on logic nor science 



E ) climate skeptics use of Industry provided canned arguments shows an agenda is being followed

F ) Oil and gas representatives and climate skeptics claims of the science is tenuous at best with basic misrepresentations of how science works and a failure to comprehend both the empirical method and the experimental along with there comparisons to the observable 


G ) skeptics have repeatedly distracted from each loosing argument rather than concede the points made by regurgitating previous arguments lost

E ) Exxon-Mobile as well as nearly every other major energy producer has been active in organizing and funding skeptics and providing biased data in an effort to stall climate recovery
Exxon-Mobil alone has spent at least $16 million, between 1998 and 2005, towards 43 advocacy organizations ( front groups ) which dispute the impact of global warming.[44] Reports argue that Exxon-Mobil used disinformation tactics similar to those used by the tobacco industry in its denials of the link between lung cancer and smoking, saying that the company used "many of the same organizations and personnel to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue."




for more on the troposphere temp data

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1115640v1?rbfvrToken=5ea9496b9834443b3721a6b59bbd5d40fcdc2304

were it is clearly stated

The temperature difference between adjacent 0000 and 1200 UTC weather balloon (radiosonde) reports shows a pervasive tendency toward cooler daytime compared to nighttime observations since the 1970s, especially at tropical stations. Several characteristics of this trend indicate that it is an artifact of systematic reductions over time in the uncorrected error due to daytime solar heating of the instrument, and should be absent from accurate climate records. Although other problems may exist, this effect alone is of sufficient magnitude to reconcile radiosonde tropospheric temperature trends and surface trends during the late 20th century.

please also see

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1114867v1?rbfvrToken=57bfe68dd33136ee413f21221631abf93113a577

given the complexities of the issue at hand and the basic confusion of climate skeptics concerning how science works
it is understandable that they fail to understand the technical issues governing radiosond dynamics
after all it is kinda a new science and these guys seem to take a long long time to catch up to the rest of us in even the simplest of terms
like consensus for instance

love B

 

Jimbo1490, I am not pushing or promoting either barrow, just seeking a plausible explanation for in my mind, major land-mass Ice melt must be caused by atmospheric warming of a significant level - to increase the temperature of water requires minimal thermal but to melt ice demands significant and measurable levels of heat.... As our "rancid" comedian "pauline pantsdown" may have said "Please Explain????"....

 

sounds like a reasonable question to the rest of us Jimmy

please explain away one of the most basic and observable elements of Global Climate Change

like

you are melting

and I remind you to please consider

although I must add that clean air laws have resulted in a slight increase in solar radiation reaching the surface
but its only ~.3% and still less than what it should be given the millions of tons of crap we spew into the atmosphere thats reflecting significant amounts of solar radiation

 

Clearly climate skeptics are making blatantly false accusations again when they assert that there is no evidence for tropical tropospheric warming

For warming skeptics, the tropospheric data are the climate science World Series. They meet every challenge to the data with a furious diatribe, but the latest such challenge puts the skeptics in there place as charlatan's of disinformation again

The fundamental, misinformation work on the subject was done by a team at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, led by the Exxon funded climatologist John Christy and principal senior scientist Roy Spencer.
The UAH team studied satellite data and; when they failed to account for sensor drift, found the troposphere, which extends up to an altitude of about 7.5 miles -- and where most of the planet's weather occurs -- was not warming as fast as the surface, although it was still warming a fact that skeptics love to omit from there use of this work 



This Industry funded data conflicted with climate models, which predicted the two should be warming at more or less the same rate ( another claim the skeptics got wrong ). The discrepancy dealt a potentially serious blow to the contention that Earth's climate is experiencing a warming that is greater than historic variation.

The satellite data set has been reviewed three times by researchers outside UAH. The data, shows the troposphere is, in fact, warming at the rate predicted by the computer climate models.



In a paper to be published in the Dec. 15 issue of the Journal of Climate, Qiang Fu, a climate professor at the University of Washington in Seattle, has re-examined his own earlier work -- published last May in the British journal Nature, the results closely coincide with the climate models.

"We used three different data profiles, three different data sets," Fu told UPI's Climate. "You would expect that the exact results would depend on the detailed structure, but it's not sensitive to the structure. The difference is very small. That's the beautiful part.



Fu used data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and from Britain's Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research. The results he obtained got from the different processes he used almost exactly matched the work he did in the May Nature piece, providing essentially an independent confirmation of that work. 

"These results are consistent with the results that the Nature paper gets," Fu said. "It is an independent check of the problem because we used completely independent data sets. The independent observations agree with our conclusions, and that's quite powerful evidence." The tropical Troposphere is warming.

rewritten and based on information from
http://uwnews.washington.edu/ni/article.asp?articleID=6657
and
http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=36988
in appreciation and respect of there open access considerations

Clearly climate skeptics are making blatantly false accusations again when they assert that water vapor accounts for 96% of greenhouse effects
the real numbers are more like ~80% by mass ~90% by volume and most importantly 36% to 66% by effect for an average effect of 51%
clouds ~25% and all other GHG ~25% of which co2 is the major contributor at ~16%
once again the skeptics are found out and exposed
( steps off soap box and takes a bow )

the truth will out my friends
the truth will out

wishing you all a tremendous holidays
best
B

ps
I have to wonder if these skeptics arent actually climate change proponents in disguise
way to go guys
keep bringing up all these skeptics falsehoods and Ill keep shooting em down k
all I ask is that you try to make it a little more challenging
cheers
B

 

how about another proverbial nail in the old skeptics coffin with the following from
the skeptics buster
(tips hat and tap dances off stage to rave applause )
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/outbox/RCWaterFig2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/busy-week-for-water-vapor/&usg=__TQpMOL3sJfmQmBHKdqJokz1hDxE=&h=396&w=627&sz=44&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=Y9HgJrHKNTQGCM:&tbnh=86&tbnw=136&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dwater%2Bvapor%2Bprovides%2Babout%2B50%2525%2Bof%2Bthe%2Bgreenhouse%2Beffect%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN

clearly water vapor is a feedback not a forcing agent
cheers
B

 

Ehmm. I like to point out the fact, that to heat;
1 kg of water 1 deg C, you'll need about 4100 Joules, to heat;
1 kg of Ice, you'll need only approx. half of that,

IF I recall correctly....

I Belive the heat tranfer between the molecules in a fixed solid (ice) is more consise than for a liquid (water), something like that.

So, still, in my opinion that anybody at all can argue that the climate is not heating, etc...? I'll still have my opinion.

Look at this one, I believe we had some mentioning about the extent of ice at the arctic, similar as before was the statement, a proof that ther's no global water. Heck, that water below that ice comes from the south, passing Norway. I beleive that I asked about thickness (or was that at another fora?): Ok, here it is:

http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_835_en.html

 

Boston.....


Don't yell....

 

Yes please...