What Do We Think About Climate Change

Hi Alan! First of all, congratulations for your son's wedding.

Jim will take care of answering you, certainly, but in the mean time I would like to pose to you one of your own questions in a slightly different way: do you have a credible evidence showing that 20th century climate trends are not within the scope of natural climate variability?

Cheers

 

When the knowledgeable lie about their position, their position loses validity, built upon a framework of lies, as it is.

P.S. My class hours in the aforementioned courses were both undergraduate level, but at least I have them. As for my expertise in boatbuilding, I built 7 for myself and friends over the last 40 years and immensely enjoyed the learning process of each build. Each build will be some new thing to learn.

 

'The Team" consists of Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, James Hansen and Phil Jones. We don't have to suppose that they 'conspired' together (your word, not mine) because they as a team authored several papers together (about 8 in total) that are essentially the only source of the idea that 20th century climate was anomalous. There had been hundreds of paleo-climate reconstructions over the years so it was not as though 'The Team' was studying something that had been ignored before. It's just that the overwhelming, nearly unanimous consensus of virtually all of those previous reconstructions was that 20th century climate was not in any way anomalous.

Before 'The Team' published the now infamous MBH-98 'Hockey Stick' recon, even the IPCC accepted the fact that it had been a couple of degrees warmer than present ~1000 years ago. Of course the Hockey Stick recon was exactly what they were looking for, and they featured it prominently after it was published. It ran into serious trouble right away and was essentially badly discredited ~2002, with further discrediting info a couple of years later and again in Sept 2009, just weeks before the email scandal.

Nobody denies that the climate is changing. So when you say "There there is no doubt there there is a minority view among climatologists against global warming", I'm guessing you really mean Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) rather than global warming due to non-specific causes. As I stated in the earlier paragraph, the idea that 20th century climate was somehow anomalous has little if any support outside of the works of Mann, Briffa, Hansen and Jones. These 4 guys are the backbone of the so-called 'great consensus' that you keep referring to. This thread is chock full of information detailing the shenanigans of these men. They have hidden raw data for decades in violation of their disclosure obligations WRT peer-review, they have been caught blatantly cherry-picking raw data, using phony data averaging algorithms and on and on. Anyone that still believes in the grand consensus, based as it is largely on the works of these 4 guys, is just credulous. Just for fun, Google "The Dog Ate Global Warming" and see for yourself.

Which gets us back to the challenge posted more than 100 thread pages ago:

Find some support for the idea that 20th century climate was anomalous WITHOUT referring to the works of 'The Team'.

I'll let the IPCC speak. This is the graph they published from 1990-2001 (before 'The Team') which is a composite (consensus) of several previous reconstructions:



The little bump all the way to the right represents the recent climate.

What YOU need to understand is that the consensus among climatologists was that the Medieval Warm Period was global in scope and warmer than 20th century climate. The minority opinion (The Team's opinion) was contrary to this. The claims they made (continue to make) WRT modern vs ancient climate are extraordinary, therefore it is incumbent upon the makers of such claims (or their supporters, such as yourself) to provide the proof of such claims.

The idea that the views of 'The Team' were/are consensus views is really a matter of clever marketing and promotion rather than anything to do with an avalanche of good scientific data.

Jimbo

 

I would like to bring again to the attention of all of you the interesting Willis Eschenbach's "Thermostat Hypothesis" published at WUWT, which I informed about in this thread back in 06-24-2009:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/14/the-thermostat-hypothesis/

“Abstract

The Thermostat Hypothesis is that tropical clouds and thunderstorms actively regulate the temperature of the earth. This keeps the earth at a equilibrium temperature.

Several kinds of evidence are presented to establish and elucidate the Thermostat Hypothesis – historical temperature stability of the Earth, theoretical considerations, satellite photos, and a description of the equilibrium mechanism. …

Conclusions and Musings

1. The sun puts out more than enough energy to totally roast the earth. It is kept from doing so by the clouds reflecting about a third of the sun’s energy back to space. As near as we can tell, this system of cloud formation to limit temperature rises has never failed.

2. This reflective shield of clouds forms in the tropics in response to increasing temperature.

3. As tropical temperatures continue to rise, the reflective shield is assisted by the formation of independent heat engines called thunderstorms. These cool the surface in a host of ways, move heat aloft, and convert heat to work.

4. Like cumulus clouds, thunderstorms also form in response to increasing temperature.

5. Because they are temperature driven, as tropical temperatures rise, tropical thunderstorms and cumulus production increase. These combine to regulate and limit the temperature rise. When tropical temperatures are cool, tropical skies clear and the earth rapidly warms. But when the tropics heat up, cumulus and cumulonimbus put a limit on the warming. This system keeps the earth within a fairly narrow band of temperatures.

6. The earth’s temperature regulation system is based on the unchanging physics of wind, water, and cloud.

7. This is a reasonable explanation for how the temperature of the earth has stayed so stable (or more recently, bi-stable as glacial and interglacial) for hundreds of millions of years.”


Eschenbach is not a climate scientist, but a retired engineer who lives in Honiara, Solomon Islands. His reasoning is in the line of the "Adaptative Infrared Iris" propugned by Richard Lindzen in 2001 and critizised by Denis Hartmann and Bing Ling.

More about the matter at:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Iris/iris.php
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Iris/iris2.php
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Iris/iris3.php

Further evidence to these articles potentially supports the Iris hypothesis.

Here a list of papers on the hypothesis dated nov 2009.
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/papers-on-the-iris-hypothesis-of-lindzen/

 

Data Analysis of Recent Warming Pattern in the Arctic
SOLA. Vol. 6A (2010) , SpecialEdition -Special Edition of the Fourth Japan China Korea Joint Conference on Meteorology- p.1-4
Masahiro Ohashi1) and H. L. Tanaka2)
1) Graduate School of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Tsukuba
2) Center for Computational Sciences, University of Tsukuba
(Received: January 15, 2010)
(Accepted: February 23, 2010)

http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/sola/6A/SpecialEdition/1/_pdf

Abstract:
In this study, we investigate the mechanism of the arctic warming pattern in surface air temperature (SAT) and sea ice concentrations over the last two decades in comparison with global warming since the 1970s.
According to the analysis result, it is found that the patterns of SAT and sea ice before 1989 are mostly determined by the Arctic Oscillation (AO) in winter. In contrast, arctic warming patterns after 1989 are characterized by the intensification of the Beaufort High and the reduced sea-ice concentrations in summer induced by the positive ice-albedo feedback.
It is concluded that the arctic warming before 1989 especially in winter was explained by the positive trend of the AOI. Moreover the intensified Beaufort High and the drastic decrease of the sea ice concentrations in September after 1989 were associated with the recent negative trend of the AOI. Since the decadal variation of the AO is recognized as the natural variability of the global atmosphere, it is shown that both of decadal variabilities before and after 1989 in the Arctic can be mostly explained by the natural variability of the AO not by the external response due to the human activity.

 

Nice job of rewriting history there, Jimbo. You make it sound so simple.

Unfortunately, the idea that a major scientific consensus can be traced to the nefarious actions of three evil scientists, who somehow imposed their will on scientists all over the world by publishing eight papers, is classic, comic-book-simple conspiracy theory.

To claim they had to flip an opposing 'overwhelming, nearly unanimous consensus' to manage it is one of those nice little touches that make this thread so much fun to read....

 

Then it should be easy to step up and show us a few recons that are not works of "The Team", that show a puny, regional MWP rather than a large global MWP as "The Team" continues to assert. It would also be a nice touch if you could show such a recon dated before 2001.

Did you even bother to read the linked page? I know you don't like to delve too deeply into opposing views, no matter how coherent, but that bit of personal sloth means you missed this:

"Further, if you compare graph 1) 1976-2000 on fig. 2 with the original temperature graph IPCC 1990-2001 on fig.1., you will see a stunning match. This indicates that the consensus of a WARM middle age before year 2001 was likely to be a real consensus."



Wasn't it amazing that the IPCC was able to predict the conclusions of recons that had not yet been compiled, let alone published?

Quoting from the same article:

"Several results came later that confirmed the IPCC’s 2001 Opinion: Hockey sticks, mainly tree lines. But how could the IPCC know what the future results on the MWP would be? If the conclusions of “climate gate” are even remotely true, then this would explain that the IPCC controlled the future results."

Golly, what remarkable clairvoyance! Maybe they should pick a few horse races and buy Lotto tickets, too Oh wait, THOSE games are honest

Jimbo

 

Jimbo, I'm sure you've already been shown anything I could show you, and you've turned it down or ignored it. There's no good reason for me to waste my time turning this thread into even more of a broken record...ecord...ecord.....

Unfortunately, your skepticism is strictly one-way. You remind me of what David Aaronovich said about Nigel Lawson, chairman of The Global Warming Policy Foundation:

"People such as Lord Lawson are not sceptical, for if one major peer-reviewed piece of scientific research were ever to be published casting doubt on climate change theory, you just know they’d have it up in neon at Piccadilly Circus. They are only sceptical about what they don’t want to be true."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article6928868.ece

 

Jimbo, I just checked out the negative points you gave me, along with the message you added. I commend you for signing your name, instead of trying to anonymously slime me.

But I see no reason for hiding your literary talents under a bushel basket; why don't we share our little exchange with everyone here?

 

The trouble is you've never shown ANYTHING and you never will! You can't even be troubled to read a one page article that proves quite factually by a compilation of 54 relevant recons the provenance of the IPCC's 'new religion' (since 2001) on the MWP! That was a 2 inch putt, man and you missed! How could you be expected to do a real search for anything, which is more like a 350 yard drive with a dog leg at the fairway?!

The recons I've challenged you to find (NOT sourced from the team, showing 20th century climate is anomalous, published before 2001) simply DON'T EXIST! Not that there were no recons before 2001; on the contrary, there were HUNDREDS! A list of the then available recons was published to this thread a couple of years back with the conclusions, much like the list of the residence time studies that has been posted to the thread (It's the same situation with the residence time studies; the ones I've challenged you to find DON'T EXIST!). The vast majority showed evidence of a prominent global MWP. A small minority showed little evidence. NONE had evidence that refuted the existence of the MWP. Not one. The first recons that claimed to refute the existence of the MWP were published by "The Team".

This should be troubling to you, as you have claimed to posses some grasp of the technicalities involved. But apparently the yawning gaps in the AGW narrative don't trouble you at all, leading to the conclusion that either:

You are a close-minded ideologue, or

You simply don't understand the issues at all.

I tend to believe it's a bit of both with an emphasis on the latter. But with just enough close-mindedness, you'll NEVER get to the point of truly understanding the nature and importance of the gaps in the AGW narrative, since the side you've latched onto will never be able to provide coherent answers to the pertinent questions, which is the heart of the problem with their narrative...

IT DOESN'T ADD UP!

Jimbo

 

Jimbo, baby. Think for a minute, before you post. If the entire scientific consensus on global warming could be refuted by a one-page article, there wouldn't be a scientific consensus, would there? The simple fact that you're claiming such supernatural powers for it tells me I'd be wasting my time reading it....

I'm not claiming any special expertise on the subject. But I will lay claim to possessing a little common sense. And my common sense tells me that if the vast majority of scientists studying climatology believe one thing, and some guy named Jimbo on a boat design forum believes another, the odds are good that Jimbo is full of it.

No guarantees, mind you. But I tend to go along with Ecclesiastes 9:11 as expanded upon by Damon Runyon: The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong--but that's the way to bet.

 

Agreed as usual fasteddy.

Consensus: Eat ****. Millions of flies can not be wrong.

History: Ha ha, love the experts on history in this forum.

Troy: how old are you 12? Still playing with giving me negative feedback when you don't like my post?

Experteese and my right to comment: To use the argument of the Canadian minister for the environment in my favour I say that the Global Warming Movement is so dangerous that even if Andropogenic warming is true, the whole idea should be scrapped and burned and forgotten because the damage this lunatics will do to our way of life will surpass by far the minuscule damage if existent at all we may do the enviroment in the next 100 years.
Furthermore who gets to decide that cooler is better than warmer? The wilderness society?
And someone please explain this to me: THEY ARE TELLING US THAT THEY DO THIS FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR CHILDREN....HA HA HA WHAT DO THEY CARE ABOUT OUR CHILDREN WHEN THEIR GOAL IS TO DECIMATE HUMANITY DOWN TO ONE BILLION MAX, PREFERABLY 500 MILLIONS? Pleeese!!!

The Global warming movement together with their cousins the greens and assorted lunatics, want the clock turned back. They want the population of the earth culled back to one billion tops (their own mothers wifes and close family excepted) Cities turned into wilderness, de-industrialisation at massive scale, thrid world countries to starve and die from deseases en-masse to make room for animals and plants. Anyone proposing this without the magic component "The Planet" would be jailed for life.

Basically this good people consider humanity to be a plague to be dealt with by taking away energy. They state that the worst that could happen is to find a cheap source of energy. This people are the real enemy and as I said at the beginning, the Global Warming movenemt should be outlawd as you would a cult that wants to release sarin gas in the subway.

Alan Rockwood
AND YOU HONESTLY WANT ME TO STOP HAVING AN OPINION AND LIVE IT TO THE EXPERTS WHEN THEY DEMONSTRATED TO BE CORRUPT, INEXCUSABLY BIASED, UN-SCIENTIFIC, MERCENARY FOR THEIR GRANTS?
PULL THE OTHER ONE !!!!!!!!!!

After all you yourself have only posted personal opinion of what you like or dislike.

Warm is good, Cold is bad. I hate global warming histeria.
I will buy one million shares in the biggest coal mine I can find.

 

Coming back again to the "Data Analysis of Recent Warming Pattern in the Arctic" by Ohashi and Tanaka, 2010:

From the Discussion:
".....the sea ice thickness relates closely to the variability of the Beaufort High."

Here we have another evidence on loss of Arctic ice thickness is due to the winds and not to an imagined effect of GHGs. It is sad to see how this fallacy is still being flagged by the scaremongering alarmists. And more sad to see people still believing them.

And:
"We also analyzed the winter SAT pattern related to the AO in the late 20th century. It is very important to mention that there is no SAT pattern in the observation for the 20th century responded to the external forcing as shown by the EOF-1 of IPCC-AR4 models. The most dominant mode in the observation is the AO pattern, whereas the most dominant pattern is the ice-albedo pattern in the model. The winter SAT pattern observed in the late 20th century is not the response to the external forcing, but the natural variability related to the AO."

As we see evidence continues to accumulate against the flawed conclusions of the IPCC's reports resulting from their inadecuate modeling.

How much of such evidende will be needed for the people and governments realize IPCC's AR4 reccomendations to policymakers are not trustable enough to keep on risking huge amounts of money and efforts trying to stupidly fight climate back?

 

Guillermo, I admire your persintence in posting scientific data. Well done.

Howver in my opinion and just as it is the case for religious beliefs, people choose what they want to believe WAY BEFORE they choose a side or a church go to. In other words, just like people choose to believe in re-encarnation Budism, Christianity or Shintoism, before seeking the fundamentals behind it, people line up for "ANTI" or "PRO" way before they even read one graph on temperature.
Peoples minds are made up based on different values. Axes to grind. Own peculiar biases. Being vegetarian. Smoking Marihuana, anything comes before the temperature graphs and the theories that are to be defended from the infidel.
I am sure you couldn't miss the fact that the debate on andropogenic global warming has nothing to do with science and facts and truth and practicality and vlaue for money but it has all to do with fervorous "BELIEF" that "we must do something"...whatever that is.

The current debate is about a massive power shift based on smoke and mirrors and the one pulling the strings are using the odd and the dissenter to support their agenda.

Eppur si muove.

 

Dear Marco,

Please quit misrepresenting what I said!

I absolutely did NOT say that you cannot have an opinion. Quite the opposite in fact. I said that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Furthermore, I did NOT say that you cannot state your opinion to anyone you want.

What I DID say is that an opinion from someone who doesn't know much about a subject is likely less valid than one who is an expert, and I stand by that statement.

I WILL REPEAT THIS ONE MORE TIME, WORD FOR WORD, SO YOU CAN GET IT THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULL.

I absolutely did NOT say that you cannot have an opinion. Quite the opposite in fact. I said that everyone is entitled to their opinion. Furthermore, I did NOT say that you cannot state your opinion to anyone you want.

What I DID say is that an opinion from someone who doesn't know much about a subject is likely less valid than one who is an expert, and I stand by that statement.

Quit misrepresenting what I said!

Alan