Global Not-warming-as-much-as-they-say

[snowsure]

Hello. Welcome to what I hope will be a much used (and never abused) topic.

Have you noticed how there appears to be periodic posts that say "GW isn't happening" followed by replies saying "Give me the proof then!"

The proofs, if ever they are posted, get lost amongst the thousand of posts within the Net-Weather forum. So, I thought, why not have a central zone for all such articles of research which question the strength of leading scientifc research?

This is surely part of the best research tradition.

I'll start the ball rolling.

There appears to be a reliance on the comparison between the CET (Central England Temperature) 1961-1990 average and current temperatures.

What if the CET has had elements of it disproved? That is how I see the following link:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005IJCli..25.1173P

What do you think? The last line of the abstract is "The uncertainties in maximum and minimum temperature make the data inadequate for the task of establishing the magnitude of the recent increase of diurnal range."

I think that this topic will work as long as posts of research articles are included and not just idle speculation.

[senior ridge]

Thanks SS for starting this thread

Here's my contribution

http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm

[Stratos Ferric]

Hello. Welcome to what I hope will be a much used (and never abused) topic.

Have you noticed how there appears to be periodic posts that say "GW isn't happening" followed by replies saying "Give me the proof then!"

The proofs, if ever they are posted, get lost amongst the thousand of posts within the Net-Weather forum. So, I thought, why not have a central zone for all such articles of research which question the strength of leading scientifc research?

This is surely part of the best research tradition.

I'll start the ball rolling.

There appears to be a reliance on the comparison between the CET (Central England Temperature) 1961-1990 average and current temperatures.

What if the CET has had elements of it disproved? That is how I see the following link:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005IJCli..25.1173P

What do you think? The last line of the abstract is "The uncertainties in maximum and minimum temperature make the data inadequate for the task of establishing the magnitude of the recent increase of diurnal range."

I think that this topic will work as long as posts of research articles are included and not just idle speculation.

SS, I think this paper is actually more to do with the precision of statistics than it is with any attempt to undermine, or not, the warming trend. After all, the abstract does clearly state that:

Despite the uncertainties in annual mean CET, the trend of 0.077 °C per decade since 1900 is significant at the 1% level. i.e. in layman's terms, it is highly unlikely that the warming measured is either innacurate, or a random occurrence.

They are also suggesting that the errors are acting to reduce maxima and increase minima - very slightly - over those stated, hence the potential impact on measured increase in diurnal range. As an aside my assumption without checking the numbers would have been that this was declining, not increasing.

[Stratos Ferric]

Thanks SS for starting this thread

Here's my contribution

http://www.magma.ca/~hurleyp/FightingTheHoax.htm

SR,

Whilst it's a good idea to have a thread supporting the anti-warming treatise, there's a risk that all this does is make even clearer the sham that is much of the material purposting to make the other side of the case.

I cross referenced one or two of the links on your article. First up Steve Milloy, whose site "Junk Science" (not the most promising title in terms of sugesting objectivity) includes quite a thorough analysis of the GW case (albeit riddled with one or two misleading statements or factual errors - but that seems to be a trick often used by soe of the cleverer debunkers); Wikipedia has an entry for him which states...

He is also a paid advocate for Phillip Morris[1], and ExxonMobil[2]

That would be Exxon Mobil as in the oil conglomerate would it? His home site includes the banner:

Since February 16, 2005, the Kyoto Protocol has cost US$ 230,523,673,649 while potentially saving an undetectable 0.002390616 °C by the year 2050.

There we go again, US right wingers saving the world.

The second link in the article goes to the Washington Post: can't be bothered to trace the analysis back further, but I have looked at the NAS site. Quite happy to agree that the "hockey stick" can be misrepresented. However, to throw out "hockey stick" warming is not to make a case for no continues warming per se. I rather like the commentry though from the NAS committee...

"Overall, our committee believes that Dr. Mann’s assessments that the

decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was

the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis."

Methinks they're splitting hairs in a way. The last decade was the warmest in the reliable record, which is the thick end of half a millenium.

I then skip a few references - all of which seem to be pointing to the same general NAS report - to find the "Mann (sic) made warming" reference. Slightly disturbed that this references a report in a petroleum journal (err, there's a pattern here), but this itself is drawn from what looks like a decent group calling themselves "friends of science". This seems like a decent critique, albeit one starting from a premise of "there is no AGW". What I am always slightly disquieted by is the states-side regurgitation of 0.6C increase in termperatures in the last 100 years. This is a dramatic flattening of a line that is actually more complicated than that. What tends to alarm me more is the near 1C rise since 1980 or so. At the same time, when debunkers do use this more complicated trend, they then say "a-ha", no straight line fit with CO2 increase then - as if CO2 is the only player on the park. Looking at some of the threads back from FoS reveals some dodgier references and contributions from individuals that look slightly more suspect. Now, look at something like this if you will:

http://iabp.apl.washington.edu/AirT/

Looks like a science paper, because - and here's the rub - IT IS. Reliable looking provenance (NASA +), data, no economically or commercially driven opinion. Let's see a bit more of that please instead of endless rhetoric and articles that cherry pick data, or misrepresent it. I'm all ears, but repeatedly using articles that have all the substance of blancmange on a hot summer's day (with or without GW at play) doesn't help the legitimacy of the argument.

Oh, and a suggestion, someone check Daniel's posts for him before he presses the "send" button.

[parmenides3]

As nobody appears to have read any of the links, articles, papers, proofs, rebuttals or, most hurtfully :lol: , posts I have written over the past month, I no longer see the point in trying to help anyone understand the issues or the science involved in GW, as nobody wants to hear them. Good luck to you.

:o P

[Stratos Ferric]

As nobody appears to have read any of the links, articles, papers, proofs, rebuttals or, most hurtfully :lol: , posts I have written over the past month, I no longer see the point in trying to help anyone understand the issues or the science involved in GW, as nobody wants to hear them. Good luck to you.

:o P

I think you're being a bit harsh on yourself there P3, and you certainly stand out from many on these pages in appearing to retain a level head in considering the pros an cons. I think you're probably also a bit the worse for wear tonight?

[parmenides3]

I think you're being a bit harsh on yourself there P3, and you certainly stand out from many on these pages in appearing to retain a level head in considering the pros an cons. I think you're probably also a bit the worse for wear tonight?

How did you guess?

:o

[Stratos Ferric]

Here's some data re the Antarctic.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/...p3?img_id=17257

Some more here, though yet again see the last paragraph - there's always an economic reason behind some of the resistance, and in any case as I said in the Daniel thread, argument against the modelled outcome for the Antarctic does not disprove GW period, it may do no more than challenge the efficacy of a part of the model.

http://www.ff.org/centers/csspp/pdf/2-CSPP...ure%20trends%22

Edited August 31, 2006 by Stratos Ferric

[Mr Sleet]

CO2 increase follows warming , does not precede it. CO2 can remain in the air in high quantities even during glaciations.It's totally feasible that the increase in CO2 we are seeing is a result of warming by other factors, and is merely a consequence of it's reduce water solubility at higher temps.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/vostokco2.html

The only other thing I would say, is that whilst the Petroleum industry does fund some of the counter arguments, it's difficult to see who else would. I'm afraid that the message "everything is ok " doesn't attract funding.Any business who is under attack from a lobby will defend itself - it doesn't automatically mean that the studies it cites are wrong.

As a practising scientist myself, I know that many of these researchers depend on their next meal not by doing work that says "everything is ok" but by saying "things are bad and are much worse than we thought- more research needed."

If one of my project team came up to me and said " you know that result we got ? it's worse than we thought." I'd say " so you were wrong before, convince me why you will be right next time".

Edited August 31, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[Stratos Ferric]

CO2 increase follows warming , does not precede it. CO2 can remain in the air in high quantities even during glaciations.It's totally feasible that the increase in CO2 we are seeing is a result of warming by other factors, and is meerly a consequence of it's reduce water solubility at higher temps.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/vostokco2.html

The only other thing I would say, is that whilst the Petroleum industry does fund some of the counter arguments, it's difficult to see who else would. I'm afraid that the message "everything is ok " doesn't attract funding.Any business who is under attack from a lobby will defend itself - it doesn't automatically mean that the studies it cites are wrong.

As a practising scientist myself, I know that many of these researchers depend on their next meal not by doing work that says "everything is ok" but by saying "things are bad and are much worse than we thought- more research needed."

First line is contentious, to say the least.

GO see, and read through...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...concentrations/

Thanks to P3 for unearthing this gem of a site by the way. Top quality debate.

To summarise the argument and data:

1 - Ice cores demonstrate a strong link between GHG and temperature through the paleo record;

2 - Temperature follows CO2 and not vice versa;

3 - We are now way above any previously measured CO2 concentrations in the ice core;

4 - Nobody hes as yet been able to produce a plausible model demonstrating why increased CO2 would NOT lead to an increase in temperature.

To which I would add, it is insane and stupid to suggest that mankind is NOT adding to the global CO2 concentration, that is physics so rudimentary that even a numpty could not present a legitimate case to the contrary.

It is, however, plausible to suggest feedback loops that increase the release of locked carbon once climate does start to warm. On that basis anthropogenic activity could catalyse accelerated natural activity.

I agree that many scientists (not all) have one line or another to follow. What we can try to do on here is to be judicious about trying to identify those who seem to have no particular cause to champion - irrespective of which side of the warming debate they are supporting.

[Mr Sleet]

First line is contentious, to say the least.

GO see, and read through...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...concentrations/

Thanks to P3 for unearthing this gem of a site by the way. Top quality debate.

To summarise the argument and data:

1 - Ice cores demonstrate a strong link between GHG and temperature through the paleo record;

2 - Temperature follows CO2 and not vice versa;

3 - We are now way above any previously measured CO2 concentrations in the ice core;

4 - Nobody hes as yet been able to produce a plausible model demonstrating why increased CO2 would NOT lead to an increase in temperature.

To which I would add, it is insane and stupid to suggest that mankind is NOT adding to the global CO2 concentration, that is physics so rudimentary that even a numpty could not present a legitimate case to the contrary.

It is, however, plausible to suggest feedback loops that increase the release of locked carbon once climate does start to warm. On that basis anthropogenic activity could catalyse accelerated natural activity.

I agree that many scientists (not all) have one line or another to follow. What we can try to do on here is to be judicious about trying to identify those who seem to have no particular cause to champion - irrespective of which side of the warming debate they are supporting.

Well I respect your views but the reference states that this new work extends the information further back in time to 80000 years and corroberates the Vostok ice core date, which shows that CO2 rise follows temp.If you read the discusion after the article, most contributors say the same. This doesn't destroy the case for the AGW-ers but greatly weakens it.To show a link would really nail it.

I realise it is a huge bugbear for the AGW -ers that they can't find a causal link between CO2 level and temp in the historical record. Some may say " this is because there are other factors at work " - I say "precisely."

Edited August 31, 2006 by Mr Sleet

[Essan]

As far as palaeotemperature/CO2 comparisons go - we do not have accurate enough data to determine for certain which precedes which

There is no point in arguing over an issue which cannot be proven.

[parmenides3]

This is the third time I have posted this link. Please read it, then comment on what it says. The comments which follow the discussion are also enlightening.

Article: 'What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in the ice core records tell us about Global Warming?'

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?=13

P

[Stratos Ferric]

Well I respect your views but the reference states that this new work extends the information further back in time to 80000 years and corroberates the Vostok ice core date, which shows that CO2 rise follows temp.If you read the discusion after the article, most contributors say the same. This doesn't destroy the case for the AGW-ers but greatly weakens it.To show a link would really nail it.

I realise it is a huge bugbear for the AGW -ers that they can't find a causal link between CO2 level and temp in the historical record. Some may say " this is because there are other factors at work " - I say "precisely."

It doesn't weaken it one jot. Given that there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, cause and effect doesn't really matter, though some kind of heating feedback is clealry implicated. If mankind is adding to the carbon load in the atmosphere he is therefore adding to the heating.

[parmenides3]

It doesn't weaken it one jot. Given that there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, cause and effect doesn't really matter, though some kind of heating feedback is clealry implicated. If mankind is adding to the carbon load in the atmosphere he is therefore adding to the heating.

Didn't I say no-one reads my posts? Didn't I? (present company excepted, SF).

P

[VillagePlank]

SS, I think this paper is actually more to do with the precision of statistics than it is with any attempt to undermine, or not, the warming trend. After all, the abstract does clearly state that:

Despite the uncertainties in annual mean CET, the trend of 0.077 °C per decade since 1900 is significant at the 1% level. i.e. in layman's terms, it is highly unlikely that the warming measured is either innacurate, or a random occurrence.

They are also suggesting that the errors are acting to reduce maxima and increase minima - very slightly - over those stated, hence the potential impact on measured increase in diurnal range. As an aside my assumption without checking the numbers would have been that this was declining, not increasing.

Mr Ferric, sir; you are indeed spot on with regards to what you say.

However,

. . and I do this reluctantly

. . . very VERY reluctantly . . . .

The global warming signal is (at best) 0.5C/decade. This with diurnal changes of around 10C, ellipsoidal changes of around 5C, seasonal changes of even more, and other marked indicators means that we're all looking for an indicator of warming (or otherwise) inside shed loads of noise.

Of course you can strip out the noise with polynomial trends, even using rolling means, or static means: they, of course, all show the same result. But you still need to account for the noise. It is simply not enough, statistically speaking, to put the noise to one side, and present a summary.

It is, of course, the case that global warming is a statistical anomaly. We have NOT had enough years of warming to even perform the simplest of chi-squared tests of significance.

This is why the debate exists

Edited August 31, 2006 by Wilson

[Mr Sleet]

It doesn't weaken it one jot. Given that there is a strong correlation between CO2 and temperature, cause and effect doesn't really matter, though some kind of heating feedback is clealry implicated. If mankind is adding to the carbon load in the atmosphere he is therefore adding to the heating.

Of course it weakens it and of course it matters.

[parmenides3]

I wonder how many people will bother to link to this post. It is a proper, scientific summary of what Wilson just said:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4688&tip=1

But, if you do read it, promise to read the concluding paragraphs, too. :unsure: P

[Mr Sleet]

As nobody appears to have read any of the links, articles, papers, proofs, rebuttals or, most hurtfully :unsure: , posts I have written over the past month, I no longer see the point in trying to help anyone understand the issues or the science involved in GW, as nobody wants to hear them. Good luck to you.

:blink: P

I do read them when I need cheering up

[Stratos Ferric]

Mr Ferric, sir; you are indeed spot on with regards to what you say.

However,

. . and I do this reluctantly

. . . very VERY reluctantly . . . .

The global warming signal is (at best) 0.5C/decade. This with diurnal changes of around 10C, ellipsoidal changes of around 5C, seasonal changes of even more, and other marked indicators means that we're all looking for an indicator of warming (or otherwise) inside shed loads of noise.

Of course you can strip out the noise with polynomial trends, even using rolling means, or static means: they, of course, all show the same result. But you still need to account for the noise. It is simply not enough, statistically speaking, to put the noise to one side, and present a summary.

It is, of course, the case that global warming is a statistical anomaly. We have NOT had enough years of warming to even perform the simplest of chi-squared tests of significance.

This is why the debate exists

Wilson, you nearly caught me there, you little minx! You and I both know that chi is a test, albeit one that accepts slightly less "robust" data, that is bivariate, so we wouldn't use chi to test warming trends. We MIGHT use it to correlate say coincidence of rainfall:temperature ratios in two different places. To test warming we'd use "t", and there is more than enough data in the record now to test and validate warming.

Furthermore, diurnal variation is an irrelevance when measuring annual means. One has a 24hr period and is clearly more volatile than variation in annual mean - which will smooth out all the diurnal effect. It's like suggesting that by sytanding on a length or road and measuring fastest and slowest cars on a daily basis I can somehow infer whether on average cars are being driven more quickly. These two data sets, whilst potentially having some correlation, do not overlap such that the mathematical behaviour of one can be taken to represent the behaviour of another i.e. they are not sample and sub-sample, so inference cannot be drawn between them.

Also, why would I want to draw a polynomial trend? For sure, you can force a mathematical curve to any degree of variables you wish, but what would be the rationale for doing so?

But you already knew all of that, cheeky chappy.

[parmenides3]

I do read them when I need cheering up :blink:

In the real world I'm a stand-up comedian.

:unsure: P

[JRMcLeod]

May not be related but maybe related slightly...i heard on the news a few weeks ago that the holes in the ozone layers are actually decreasing and returning back and will fully healed by 2030...scientists in Australia have been monitoring them for a while now and they are reversing...

I might be off the beaten track abit but the main cause of global warming is harmful gas i.e. CO2, if these are detramental to the atmosphere yet the ozone is healing itself does this not mean that maybe global warming isnt quite as certain as we all thought? Maybe im wrong and i would like to be corrected if i am....

On a personal note i believe that what we are going through is natural and before we know it, even in my lifetime...say 2050/60 we will be entering another phase which will be very cold...maybe even the onslought os a mini iceage... :unsure:

Edited August 31, 2006 by yeahbabyyeah

[Stratos Ferric]

May not be related but maybe related slightly...i heard on the news a few weeks ago that the holes in the ozone layers are actually decreasing and returning back and will fully healed by 2030...scientists in Australia have been monitoring them for a while now and they are reversing...

I might be off the beaten track abit but the main cause of global warming is harmful gas i.e. CO2, if these are detramental to the atmosphere yet the ozone is healing itself does this not mean that maybe global warming isnt quite as certain as we all thought? Maybe im wrong and i would like to be corrected if i am....

On a personal note i believe that what we are going through is natural and before we know it, even in my lifetime...say 2050/60 we will be entering another phase which will be very cold...maybe even the onslought os a mini iceage... :unsure:

The ozone hole problem was driven by a different set of aerosols, CFCs, so doesn't relate directly to warming (though there was some argument about the mpacts on the stratosphere, and so the global envelope, re the same). What it illustrates, however, assuming the hole does close, is that action can be worthwhile.

Maybe you should read the article in the "semantics" thread and decide which group you belong to.

[Pennine Ten Foot Drifts]

I wonder how many people will bother to link to this post. It is a proper, scientific summary of what Wilson just said:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=4688&tip=1

But, if you do read it, promise to read the concluding paragraphs, too. :unsure: P

I think you are referring to this then ? :

"Thus at bottom, it is very difficult to separate human induced change from natural change, certainly not with the confidence we all seek. In these circumstances, it is essential to remember that the inability to prove human-induced change is not the same thing as a demonstration of its absence. It is probably true that most scientists would assign a very high probability that human-induced change is already strongly present in the climate system, while at the same time agreeing that clear-cut proof is not now available and may not be available for a long-time to come, if ever. Public policy has to be made on the basis of probabilities, not firm proof."

This pretty much encapsulates what I struggle to understand from all this. It appears that for many 'scientifically rigorous' persons, proof must be absolute before they will make a decision. But from what I have read that will be almost impossible for a very long time. Now what is the use of such a position if by that stage, having found that GW was significantly affected by human activity, the situation is already catastrophic in terms of effects on global population masses, so it's too late to do anything. If this does come to pass then for all the nay-sayers 'Fiddling while Rome burns' is a phrase which comes to mind.

Surely the only sensible position to take at this stage is to accept that GW may be exacerbated by human activity, and this may have catastrophic effects on human existence in a very short space of time, (in terms of geological time spans), so therefore we all have a responsibility to try and reduce any activities which could contribute to this given our current knowledge of what may or may not affect global climates. If in the fullness of time it turn's out that human activity wasn't either to blame or an exarcebating factor I'll take my hat off to those that argued for this position. But nevertheless by making the efforts anyway nothing will have been lost, (unless perhaps you have shares in an oil company of course !), and I'll be able to look all those peoples who sufferred squarely in the eye knowing we did what we could given our levels of understanding at the current time.

Rigorous argument is of course a good thing, but sometimes I fear it is used as shield by those who don't want to face possibly painful changes, or who have vested interests in doing nothing.

[John Cox]

On a personal note i believe that what we are going through is natural and before we know it, even in my lifetime...say 2050/60 we will be entering another phase which will be very cold...maybe even the onslought os a mini iceage... :unsure:

All the warmites will be jumping down your throat now yeahbabyyeah

:blink: :lol: