General Climate Change Discussion Continued:

[Devonian]

I have to be honest here.. I'm getting a little fed up with not being able to find actual temperatures for the globe. We have to accept anomaly charts. This year so far and the back end of last, we have had some interesting records regarding cold but we just have anomaly charts.

I'm sorry but what does an anomaly chart prove when you want to see the data? Something ain't right. It's like everything is hidden.. More so since a certain problem cropped up.

The governments want us to believe that we are warming but we cant see the figures and they wonder why all the doubt.....

Anyone got a link to the actual data??? ie current up to last week? It used to be available..

PP, I look at temperature reading (measurements) like the measurements of heights of individuals.

Now, with a lot of either measurement you can find out average height or average temperature. But, to find out if people are getting shorter or taller you see if the average is changing. If it is then there is a -ve or +ve anomaly.

Indeed, what can just looking at individual heights (or temperatures) tell us? YOu surely have to look at all the data and analyse it?

Edit: of course I'm assuming there is data (becuase, well, there is). Are you saying there isn't any?

Time to personally bin this thread. NASA now possibly fudging temps, the Himalayan glacier farce, the IPCC allegedly using false data to cajole governments into AGW policies...it stinks. And it will go on and on and on.

BFTP

Yes, I'm sure there are people who'd like the whole notion of AGW quietly air brushed away.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

Time to personally bin this thread. NASA now possibly fudging temps, the Himalayan glacier farce, the IPCC allegedly using false data to cajole governments into AGW policies...it stinks. And it will go on and on and on.

BFTP

I wonder why, what with the upcoming 'Climategate' enquiry, would sceptics suddenly be wanting things hushed-up?? An interesting turn-of-events methinks?? :unsure:

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Potty

Its because it is a headbanging thread that will never get resolved until we

a] plunge into colder temps

or

b] see the planet melt before us.

Whether believers like it or not, the climategate, the Himalaya farce, the hockey stick, Had CRU, GISS, IPCC handsup...who is really telling the truth? We won't get the truth until one or other points happens.

BFTP

[Devonian]

Potty

Its because it is a headbanging thread that will never get resolved until we

a] plunge into colder temps

or

b] see the planet melt before us.

Whether believers like it or not, the climategate, the Himalaya farce, the hockey stick, Had CRU, GISS, IPCC handsup...who is really telling the truth? We won't get the truth until one or other points happens.

BFTP

Blast, do you trust the satellite data produce by well known AGW sceptic Dr Roy Spencer?

[sunny starry skies]

Potty

Its because it is a headbanging thread that will never get resolved until we

a] plunge into colder temps

or

b] see the planet melt before us.

Whether believers like it or not, the climategate, the Himalaya farce, the hockey stick, Had CRU, GISS, IPCC handsup...who is really telling the truth? We won't get the truth until one or other points happens.

BFTP

climategate - nothing there substantive to trouble the science.

Himalaya farce - ditto, though should prod IPCC to be even more scrupulous about every shred of data

the hockey stick - sound enough to me http://www.realclima...e-hockey-stick/, and actually it's not that important... http://www.realclima...ick-were-wrong/

Had CRU - you're repeating yourself here, or are you suggesting there's something wrong with the dataset?

GISS - watts wrong with that? It's well understood why it shows higher temps than HADCRUT3, but all indices show... rising temperatures!

IPCC handsup - uh? Yes, the report isn't 100% perfect - it was written by people! but the conclusions are still sound...

I'd rather not wait till the planet melts for all the deniers' apologies for holding up the process in the name of 'rigorousness' or 'fact-checking' when they either don't understand the science, don't want to accept the data, or do want to accept unsubstantiated drool from McIntyre, Watts or whichever of their cronies are providing the latest unsound, incoherent argument, while they show nothing as to why increased GHGs do not warm the planet. We've been waiting decades for a sound irrefutable argument but none has come, just nitpicking or a follow of the latest incorrect bandwagon (eg solar), and the ignoring of the people who do know the most about the subject - the climate scientists!

And for those who don't believe the temps, or the mechanism, how about this, nearly 10 years old research, but clearly shows the actual effect of GHGs on the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation emitted from Earth:

first shown in: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html {diagram in the full text version}

confirmed in (among others):

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI4204.1

http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/Publications/Conference_and_Workshop_Proceedings/groups/cps/documents/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf

Basically, they show that between 1970 and 1996/2003, the amount of radiation escaping from the top of the atmosphere drops, specifically in the wavebands predicted for GHG gases, therefore confirming that the GHGs are warming the planet.

sss

Edited January 25, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[Gowon]

climategate - nothing there substantive to trouble the science.

Himalaya farce - ditto, though should prod IPCC to be even more scrupulous about every shred of data

the hockey stick - sound enough to me http://www.realclima...e-hockey-stick/, and actually it's not that important... http://www.realclima...ick-were-wrong/

Had CRU - you're repeating yourself here, or are you suggesting there's something wrong with the dataset?

GISS - watts wrong with that? It's well understood why it shows higher temps than HADCRUT3, but all indices show... rising temperatures!

IPCC handsup - uh? Yes, the report isn't 100% perfect - it was written by people! but the conclusions are still sound...

I'd rather not wait till the planet melts for all the deniers' apologies for holding up the process in the name of 'rigorousness' or 'fact-checking' when they either don't understand the science, don't want to accept the data, or do want to accept unsubstantiated drool from McIntyre, Watts or whichever of their cronies are providing the latest unsound, incoherent argument, while they show nothing as to why increased GHGs do not warm the planet. We've been waiting decades for a sound irrefutable argument but none has come, just nitpicking or a follow of the latest incorrect bandwagon (eg solar), and the ignoring of the people who do know the most about the subject - the climate scientists!

And for those who don't believe the temps, or the mechanism, how about this, nearly 10 years old research, but clearly shows the actual effect of GHGs on the spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation emitted from Earth:

first shown in: http://www.nature.co...s/410355a0.html {diagram in the full text version}

confirmed in (among others):

http://ams.allenpres...75%2FJCLI4204.1

http://www.eumetsat....1_harries_v.pdf

Basically, they show that between 1970 and 1996/2003, the amount of radiation escaping from the top of the atmosphere drops, specifically in the wavebands predicted for GHG gases, therefore confirming that the GHGs are warming the planet.

sss

I think you'll soon find out that, the real cronies are the ones working for the IPCC.

What you and the rest of the AGW gang need to do is, step outside of your computers and statistics and get in touch with the real world.

Peace and love.

Higrade.

[laserguy]

I think you'll soon find out that, the real cronies are the ones working for the IPCC.

What you and the rest of the AGW gang need to do is, step outside of your computers and statistics and get in touch with the real world.

The 'warmists'/ 'climate changists' are operating within an impenetrable,delusional CO2-filled bubble which I've grown weary of trying to pop. See y'all.

[Solar Cycles]

Potty

Its because it is a headbanging thread that will never get resolved until we

a] plunge into colder temps

or

b] see the planet melt before us.

Whether believers like it or not, the climategate, the Himalaya farce, the hockey stick, Had CRU, GISS, IPCC handsup...who is really telling the truth? We won't get the truth until one or other points happens.

BFTP

My sentiments exactly Fred, now is the time to sit back, and let the warmists stew in their own juices.

[sunny starry skies]

I think you'll soon find out that, the real cronies are the ones working for the IPCC.

What you and the rest of the AGW gang need to do is, step outside of your computers and statistics and get in touch with the real world.

Peace and love.

Higrade.

based on what, exactly?

AGW is based on a great number of sound observations in all manner of different observational fields, temperature change being only one; it is also based on a sound and straightforward physical theory that you can prove yourself in your kitchen (2 bottles of air, one with CO2 added, shine sunlight on them, see which one is warmer...), and which of course is soundly proven in the lab. AGW proponents do get outside to the real world - they are the scientists who measure the glaciers receding, tropospheric temp rises, sea ice thinning/retreat, stratospheric temperature drops etc etc. Others observe the consequences, changing seasons, acidity changes in oceans, snowpack reduction and water shortages, and so on. Quite where in the 'real world' are all these disparate observations, and the host of others beyond them, wrong?

Actually, I think you might need to check out the 'real world', as the observations fit AGW, and no 'skeptic' has successfully put forward an hypothesis that fits the observations without GHGs. I'm still waiting, as, I'm sure, are the editorial boards of Nature and Science. You can cry 'foul' all you like, but sooner or later you need to support your cries with evidence. Meanwhile the world warms...

sss

[Solar Cycles]

based on what, exactly?

AGW is based on a great number of sound observations in all manner of different observational fields, temperature change being only one; it is also based on a sound and straightforward physical theory that you can prove yourself in your kitchen (2 bottles of air, one with CO2 added, shine sunlight on them, see which one is warmer...), and which of course is soundly proven in the lab. AGW proponents do get outside to the real world - they are the scientists who measure the glaciers receding, tropospheric temp rises, sea ice thinning/retreat, stratospheric temperature drops etc etc. Others observe the consequences, changing seasons, acidity changes in oceans, snowpack reduction and water shortages, and so on. Quite where in the 'real world' are all these disparate observations, and the host of others beyond them, wrong?

Actually, I think you might need to check out the 'real world', as the observations fit AGW, and no 'skeptic' has successfully put forward an hypothesis that fits the observations without GHGs. I'm still waiting, as, I'm sure, are the editorial boards of Nature and Science. You can cry 'foul' all you like, but sooner or later you need to support your cries with evidence. Meanwhile the world warms...

sss

But none off these show that AGW was responsible for the warming SSS! We know we have warmed, but we can only best guess as to what caused this!

[PeteG]

What you and the rest of the AGW gang need to do is, step outside of your computers and statistics and get in touch with the real world.

Peace and love.

Higrade.

And if you step out into the real world what do you find?

A far as the UK is concerned the growing season has got longer, trees are breaking into leaf earlier ( up to 12 days earlier since the 1970's for some species),and some migrating birds are arriving earlier.

Would seem to indicate that our corner of the globe has got warmer, I wonder why that might be?

[Gowon]

based on what, exactly?

AGW is based on a great number of sound observations in all manner of different observational fields, temperature change being only one; it is also based on a sound and straightforward physical theory that you can prove yourself in your kitchen (2 bottles of air, one with CO2 added, shine sunlight on them, see which one is warmer...), and which of course is soundly proven in the lab. AGW proponents do get outside to the real world - they are the scientists who measure the glaciers receding, tropospheric temp rises, sea ice thinning/retreat, stratospheric temperature drops etc etc. Others observe the consequences, changing seasons, acidity changes in oceans, snowpack reduction and water shortages, and so on. Quite where in the 'real world' are all these disparate observations, and the host of others beyond them, wrong?

Actually, I think you might need to check out the 'real world', as the observations fit AGW, and no 'skeptic' has successfully put forward an hypothesis that fits the observations without GHGs. I'm still waiting, as, I'm sure, are the editorial boards of Nature and Science. You can cry 'foul' all you like, but sooner or later you need to support your cries with evidence. Meanwhile the world warms...

sss

[/quote

My point exactly. Stuff your bottles of air with CO2 in it, that's not the real world is it, the real world is far more complex, and the last time I checked it didn't resemble 2 bottles of air.

The evidence is right across the NH if you'd care to step outside, oh I forgot, it's AGW why it's been so damned cold out there.

[Gowon]

And if you step out into the real world what do you find?

A far as the UK is concerned the growing season has got longer, trees are breaking into leaf earlier ( up to 12 days earlier since the 1970's for some species),and some migrating birds are arriving earlier.

Would seem to indicate that our corner of the globe has got warmer, I wonder why that might be?

Doesn't mean it's AGW, and if these cold winters keep occurring, then nature will respond accordingly and revert to early patterns.

[sunny starry skies]

My point exactly. Stuff your bottles of air with CO2 in it, that's not the real world is it, the real world is far more complex, and the last time I checked it didn't resemble 2 bottles of air.

The evidence is right across the NH if you'd care to step outside, oh I forgot, it's AGW why it's been so damned cold out there.

looks like you want me to go round in circles here. So... let me get this right. You want me to throw aside the whole gamut of evidence supporting AGW theory because...

ermmm...

...it's cold outside your house??

...the last two winters have been cold in the UK?????

Sounds like another chronic case of IMBY-ism. You have to understand that global climate is, well, global. The UK represents <1% of the land area, and cold weather in a few particular areas does not reflect global temperatures. This is old news, we debated this earlier in the month and it's clear that even despite negative AO conditions bringing unusual cold to some parts of the NH, the overall pattern was still one of the temperature being well inside the top 10 recorded warm months (Dec). Unless you have devastating new data to refute this?

Do you even know what the pattern across the NH is? Here's a place to start before you go off on one...

http://ds.data.jma.g...mate/synop.html

Look at the anomalies for the NH - you'll find that last week (13-19th Jan) there's a mix of warm and cool anomalies, but on balance more warm than cool (e.g. notably USA/Canada was very warm), we're cooler than average as with some other areas. All that IMBY-ness doesn't matter, it's the average of all those that provides the indication of whether global surface temperatures have risen, ie less heat is escaping than has been put into the system.

Do you agree with me that air with added CO2 keeps heat in the system more effectively than air without CO2? Because that's old physics, nothing new, or 'fudged' (see my earlier post today for refs)...

sss

Edited January 25, 2010 by sunny starry skies

[Thundery wintry showers]

But none off these show that AGW was responsible for the warming SSS! We know we have warmed, but we can only best guess as to what caused this!

That argument often (deliberately?) misleads because climate science is full of uncertainty, and so we work in probabilities. We cannot say that something definitely happened but we can say that it probably happened on the basis of the available evidence.

All too often the argument is used to imply, "we don't know for definite if it was AGW or not, therefore it must be a 50-50 chance", which is like saying, on the verge of a mild spell, "the chance of south-westerly winds bringing tropical maritime air in 5 days' time are 50-50 because we don't know for definite, even though the vast majority of the forecast models show south-westerlies".

The existence of AGW is pretty much proven already, it's the extent of existence that still contains room for debate.

[Solar Cycles]

That argument often (deliberately?) misleads because climate science is full of uncertainty, and so we work in probabilities. We cannot say that something definitely happened but we can say that it probably happened on the basis of the available evidence.

All too often the argument is used to imply, "we don't know for definite if it was AGW or not, therefore it must be a 50-50 chance", which is like saying, on the verge of a mild spell, "the chance of south-westerly winds bringing tropical maritime air in 5 days' time are 50-50 because we don't know for definite, even though the vast majority of the forecast models show south-westerlies".

The existence of AGW is pretty much proven already, it's the extent of existence that still contains room for debate.

That was my point TWS, we are making best guesses, and then misleading the public, into believing this to be a fact!

[Dartmoor_Matt]

Round and round we go.

How about we agree to disagree and all reconvene in 10-15 years when all the ice has gone... or not as the case will be and see where we stand then, under 6 feet of water no doubt.

It really is getting quite boring with the same arguements being used, no matter what new evidence crops up, and lets face it, most of the new evidence is not pointing towards AGW.

But either way, y'all have fun on the merry go round.

[Gowon]

looks like you want me to go round in circles here. So... let me get this right. You want me to throw aside the whole gamut of evidence supporting AGW theory because...

ermmm...

...it's cold outside your house??

...the last two winters have been cold in the UK?????

Sounds like another chronic case of IMBY-ism. You have to understand that global climate is, well, global. The UK represents <1% of the land area, and cold weather in a few particular areas does not reflect global temperatures. This is old news, we debated this earlier in the month and it's clear that even despite negative AO conditions bringing unusual cold to some parts of the NH, the overall pattern was still one of the temperature being well inside the top 10 recorded warm months (Dec). Unless you have devastating new data to refute this?

Do you even know what the pattern across the NH is? Here's a place to start before you go off on one...

http://ds.data.jma.g...mate/synop.html

Look at the anomalies for the NH - you'll find that last week (13-19th Jan) there's a mix of warm and cool anomalies, but on balance more warm than cool (e.g. notably USA/Canada was very warm), we're cooler than average as with some other areas. All that IMBY-ness doesn't matter, it's the average of all those that provides the indication of whether global surface temperatures have risen, ie less heat is escaping than has been put into the system.

Do you agree with me that air with added CO2 keeps heat in the system more effectively than air without CO2? Because that's old physics, nothing new, or 'fudged' (see my earlier post today for refs)...

sss

You're having a bubble bro! Your map tells me that, there have been more cold anomalies in the NH. Furthermore I don't see any exceptionally hot spots in the SH, it actually looks like S. Australia has been cool along with New Zealand, S. America and S. Africa.

[Devonian]

based on what, exactly?

AGW is based on a great number of sound observations in all manner of different observational fields, temperature change being only one; it is also based on a sound and straightforward physical theory that you can prove yourself in your kitchen (2 bottles of air, one with CO2 added, shine sunlight on them, see which one is warmer...), and which of course is soundly proven in the lab. AGW proponents do get outside to the real world - they are the scientists who measure the glaciers receding, tropospheric temp rises, sea ice thinning/retreat, stratospheric temperature drops etc etc. Others observe the consequences, changing seasons, acidity changes in oceans, snowpack reduction and water shortages, and so on. Quite where in the 'real world' are all these disparate observations, and the host of others beyond them, wrong?

Actually, I think you might need to check out the 'real world', as the observations fit AGW, and no 'skeptic' has successfully put forward an hypothesis that fits the observations without GHGs. I'm still waiting, as, I'm sure, are the editorial boards of Nature and Science. You can cry 'foul' all you like, but sooner or later you need to support your cries with evidence. Meanwhile the world warms...

sss

[/quote

My point exactly. Stuff your bottles of air with CO2 in it, that's not the real world is it, the real world is far more complex, and the last time I checked it didn't resemble 2 bottles of air.

The evidence is right across the NH if you'd care to step outside, oh I forgot, it's AGW why it's been so damned cold out there.

I can't believe you could write that. The reality is that even in the cold spell only parts of the NH were below normal. That is the real world , indeed, check out the latest data here.. You can't 'step outside' you door, and from that tell what the Northern Hemisphere is like - c'mon that's nonsense.

Edited January 25, 2010 by Devonian

[sunny starry skies]

Round and round we go.

How about we agree to disagree and all reconvene in 10-15 years when all the ice has gone... or not as the case will be and see where we stand then, under 6 feet of water no doubt.

It really is getting quite boring with the same arguements being used, no matter what new evidence crops up, and lets face it, most of the new evidence is not pointing towards AGW.

But either way, y'all have fun on the merry go round.

what evidence? That's what I'm looking for too...

sss

[Methuselah]

That was my point TWS, we are making best guesses, and then misleading the public, into believing this to be a fact!

We could always try 'worst' guesses??

[Thundery wintry showers]

Round and round we go.

How about we agree to disagree and all reconvene in 10-15 years when all the ice has gone... or not as the case will be and see where we stand then, under 6 feet of water no doubt.

It really is getting quite boring with the same arguements being used, no matter what new evidence crops up, and lets face it, most of the new evidence is not pointing towards AGW.

But either way, y'all have fun on the merry go round.

Actually, most of the available evidence does support AGW, including a large majority of the new evidence. Some of the new evidence disputes the extent of AGW, some of it suggesting that it's less than the IPCC say, some of it suggesting that it's more.

The main reason why these debates are going around in circles is because there are some who refuse to accept any evidence for the existence of AGW, preferring to sit behind the comfortable line of reasoning "AGW is a myth because AGW is a myth", a line of reasoning that is ready-made to bring any debate around in circles (due to its inherently circular nature) and therefore protect the position against being refuted. Bringing the debate to a close (as a few people have suggested, all from the "AGW is a myth" camp) is also a good way to protect that position from attack.

Some more open-mindedness, particularly from the camp that rejects AGW, would help to bring the debate along- open-mindedness means the ability to consider other points of view, instead of following the "I know I'm right" line, and even revise one's own positions if confronted with sufficiently compelling evidence on the contrary (and this can apply to the staunch "AGW will definitely kill us all" people as well).

[Dartmoor_Matt]

what evidence? That's what I'm looking for too...

sss

I think you will find the support for IPCC reports slowly ebbing as new revelations come out over the coming weeks.

Politicians are being made to look stupid, and we know they don't like that. So what happens next is usually the sound of the death knell.

[Devonian]

I think you will find the support for IPCC reports slowly ebbing as new revelations come out over the coming weeks.

Yeah, that's good sceptic PR for you - a odd mistake here, a few word there taken out of context and with the right spin people think a whole science will fall. Sorry, science only falls if better science comes along. I suspect SSS want rather more than PR, I suspect he want solid evidence. You know figures, data, theory, not political propaganda from WUWT and right wing newspapers...

Politicians are being made to look stupid, and we know they don't like that. So what happens next is usually the sound of the death knell.

But, again, this is science. So, if you think the science is wrong lets see another theory, other data. Can you provide that? I'd be shocked of you or anyone could - but go on, surprise me

Edited January 25, 2010 by Devonian

[Thundery wintry showers]

Indeed, the politicans are being made to look stupid, but not for the same reasons. They are being made to look stupid for mis-representing the scientists and making things out to be more certain than they really are.

So if there is a death knell, it will be respectable scientists being unfairly lumped together with politicians who indulge in a good deal of spin.