Climate Science

[songster]

That's measuring something different. That paper asks "Of the CO2 we generate by burning fossil fuels, how much stays in the atmosphere?". The answer is about 40%, and holding steady.

What Pete Tattum and I were addressing is the question "Of the total CO2 in the atmosphere, how much came from fossil fuels and how much came from other sources?". The answer, coincidentally, is also around 40%.

[Gray-Wolf]

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022

The 5 main temp trends with the 'natural' taken out showing just the man made warming. surprisingly 09' and 10' are the top temps in the series (and last years Nina' the hottest on record!)

[loafer]

But can you rely upon the data...see below for the "adjustments" made to USHCN data over the years. It's remarkably similar to the published warming, isn't it?

[Cloudman]

Yes you can trust the data, the satellites show exactly the same warming as the surface data over the last 30 years and recent studies carried out by skeptics (now former skeptics) have confirmed the warming trend in the surface data. The warming is undisputed.

[loafer]

Did you read the previous post? If the data analysis is a factual as you say, why the adjustments which account for virtually all of the quoted warming?

I would be very happy to see unadjusted data on temperatures, ice, CO2 and so on, but no-one seems to release it. Not an unreasonable request is it?

[Devonian]

Did you read the previous post? If the data analysis is a factual as you say, why the adjustments which account for virtually all of the quoted warming?

I would be very happy to see unadjusted data on temperatures, ice, CO2 and so on, but no-one seems to release it. Not an unreasonable request is it?

Well, firstly the surface warming is about .8C that adjustment graph is in degrees Farenheit. .5F =.28C

Secondly, if the unadjusted surface data is correct then the satellites must be wrong since, as cloudman says, they show pretty much the same warming rate as the adjusted surface data.

So which one do you accept? Satellites or unadjusted surface data - it can't be both.

[loafer]

Interesting.

Why, then does the data not show warming for the last 10 years?

Unless, of course, you adjust it again, as in GW's reference paper http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf

[leicesternosnowzone]

Some interesting points in this thread a good read. Loafer a quick question, is it that you don't think temperatures at the surface/lower troposphere have been rising in the last century or is it that you don't believe that man-made emissions are responsible for warming? I think some of the best evidence for warming temperatures come from mountain glacier retreat particularly photographic evidence of them moving up mountains in the alps in particular but also many other parts of the world since the early 1900's. This then causes less debate over satellites and the possible problems with using them to measure temperature, sea ice, etc.

I notice there was some debate over The Sun's influence on climate as well, I think sun spot cycles are now widely recognised as having some influence on the climate of recent decades, they are currently estimated to have accounted for approximately 10% of warming since 1900 (0.07C), this is still an area actively researched in climate science and I wouldn't surprised if this estimate was say 50% out either way. There all still high levels of uncertainty in aspects of climate science but this doesn't make the science invalid.

Ice cores are considered one of the best proxies of atmospheric composition, the records can be brought right up to modern instrumental measurements of CO2 and they show a very good match with them. The oxygen isotopes contained within them can be used to record glacial periods, the timing of negative intrusions of the heavier 18 oxygen isotopes match closely with data gathered from the rock record.

As a final point I don't think too many people doubt that the greenhouse effect exists and causes averge global temperatures to be 30C warmer than they would be otherwise. So why is it then that people don't think that our emissions of CO2, CH4 (rice paddies and cattle), CFCs, NOx and many more greenhouse gases are (and will continue to) causing climate to warm on a global scale? Of course levels of greenhouse gases have varied over geological time, collisions of continents, solar variation, volcanic emissions(?) and the development of large organisms have driven these changes in the past but today it is my opinion that anthropogenic emissions are causing climate to change, it is not that our emissions are greater than natural emissions (they're not) it is that they have gone beyond the level that the carbon cycle can absorb.

[Devonian]

Interesting.

Why, then does the data not show warming for the last 10 years?

Unless, of course, you adjust it again, as in GW's reference paper http://iopscience.io..._6_4_044022.pdf

Because of short term effects like El Nino/La Nina. Such effect are the noise in the signal - adjust, or allow, for them and the longer term trend is made clearer.

[4wd]

I think some of the best evidence for warming temperatures come from mountain glacier retreat particularly photographic evidence of them moving up mountains in the alps in particular but also many other parts of the world since the early 1900's..

Glaciers are very poor proxies for temperature records, because they are as much if not more affected by precipitation.

Precipitation patterns change for a variety of reasons unrelated to temperatures.

[Methuselah]

Glaciers are very poor proxies for temperature records, because they are as much if not more affected by precipitation.

Precipitation patterns change for a variety of reasons unrelated to temperatures.

Temperature record are fine though? And what do they say?

[4wd]

Temperature record are fine though? And what do they say?

Nothing about *why* a small increase is observed, and a lot about Urban Heat Island growth.

[loafer]

Some interesting points in this thread a good read. Loafer a quick question, is it that you don't think temperatures at the surface/lower troposphere have been rising in the last century or is it that you don't believe that man-made emissions are responsible for warming? I think some of the best evidence for warming temperatures come from mountain glacier retreat particularly photographic evidence of them moving up mountains in the alps in particular but also many other parts of the world since the early 1900's. This then causes less debate over satellites and the possible problems with using them to measure temperature, sea ice, etc.

Thanks, Leicesternosnowzone - a good and reasonable question, but not a simple one, so bear with me!

Basically, I come from a cynical perspective. A lot of the fluff on climate science smells like a con-job to someone like me who is professionally proficient at sniffing them out. That is not to say there is no validity to climate science – there is – it is just that it is being promoted by most from a biased, not balanced perspective.

I certainly agree that CO2, Methane and so on are “greenhouse†gases, but I do not believe that their effect is anything like that in the models. Many models ignore the big ball of flame in the sky or the fact that space is cold – how is that credible? My view is that our limited understanding of climate science is repeatedly shown to be overestimating outcomes simply because we take the variables and compound them when in fact there are many more balancing factors in climate science we fail to take into account. Take the last 10 years I referred to above. Were they predicted as not having increasing temperatures due to low solar activity in advance? Not as far as I am aware, as you rightly imply in your post. It was an excuse when the models didn't work out. Possibly a valid excuse, but after the fact nevertheless.

Another problem I have is the lack of balance – whilst I understand commentators might say “look at the sea ice in the xxx sea, its's 20% down on last year", the fact they never say “look at the sea ice in the yyy sea, it's 20% up on last year" discredits their observations – they are simply biased. More pathetically, how about Polar bears? They aren't under threat, they are thriving yet climate activists use pictures of them marooned on melting ice to illustrate their views, which makes people like me doubt everything they say. We are in the post-spin world.

Thirdly, I detest the simplicity and duplicity of climate activists. CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere, but even if you believe the models (see above) the biggest problem the human race faces is not how much CO2 is produced per person, it is the number of people. Despite this indisputable fact, you will never find a climate scientist advocating a moderation of population growth which is it's underlying cause. What about green energy? Wind farms? Don't make me laugh. The density of air means they are completely pointless. At least tidal makes sense - shame it isn't fashionable because of the poor ickle fishes.

I could go on, but essentially my problem with climate science (which has morphed into climate activism) is that it isn't open and honest. Why does the data on which massive political and fiscal decisions are made have to be adjusted and filtered before being released. Why does it take data theft to show the contempt with which science is held by so-called scientists.

All I want is honesty and openness. Some of the pieces of the jigsaw are clear, and it is certain that we should conserve energy and do the right thing whether the models are right or wrong, but science and objectivity has been subsumed by lobbyists until no one is listening anymore, and if they are, they are like me and now disbelieve what they hear.

Reform, or be damned.

[Devonian]

Thanks, Leicesternosnowzone - a good and reasonable question, but not a simple one, so bear with me!

Basically, I come from a cynical perspective. A lot of the fluff on climate science smells like a con-job to someone like me who is professionally proficient at sniffing them out. That is not to say there is no validity to climate science – there is – it is just that it is being promoted by most from a biased, not balanced perspective.

I certainly agree that CO2, Methane and so on are “greenhouse†gases, but I do not believe that their effect is anything like that in the models. Many models ignore the big ball of flame in the sky or the fact that space is cold – how is that credible? My view is that our limited understanding of climate science is repeatedly shown to be overestimating outcomes simply because we take the variables and compound them when in fact there are many more balancing factors in climate science we fail to take into account. Take the last 10 years I referred to above. Were they predicted as not having increasing temperatures due to low solar activity in advance? Not as far as I am aware, as you rightly imply in your post. It was an excuse when the models didn't work out. Possibly a valid excuse, but after the fact nevertheless.

Another problem I have is the lack of balance – whilst I understand commentators might say “look at the sea ice in the xxx sea, its's 20% down on last year", the fact they never say “look at the sea ice in the yyy sea, it's 20% up on last year" discredits their observations – they are simply biased. More pathetically, how about Polar bears? They aren't under threat, they are thriving yet climate activists use pictures of them marooned on melting ice to illustrate their views, which makes people like me doubt everything they say. We are in the post-spin world.

Thirdly, I detest the simplicity and duplicity of climate activists. CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere, but even if you believe the models (see above) the biggest problem the human race faces is not how much CO2 is produced per person, it is the number of people. Despite this indisputable fact, you will never find a climate scientist advocating a moderation of population growth which is it's underlying cause. What about green energy? Wind farms? Don't make me laugh. The density of air means they are completely pointless. At least tidal makes sense - shame it isn't fashionable because of the poor ickle fishes.

I could go on, but essentially my problem with climate science (which has morphed into climate activism) is that it isn't open and honest. Why does the data on which massive political and fiscal decisions are made have to be adjusted and filtered before being released. Why does it take data theft to show the contempt with which science is held by so-called scientists.

All I want is honesty and openness. Some of the pieces of the jigsaw are clear, and it is certain that we should conserve energy and do the right thing whether the models are right or wrong, but science and objectivity has been subsumed by lobbyists until no one is listening anymore, and if they are, they are like me and now disbelieve what they hear.

Reform, or be damned.

Loafer, what do you make of this climate science? I've spent the evening watching it, and I highly recommend it. The second presentation is a particularly fine explanation of the Greenhouse Effect and it's perturbation. All I see is scientists way in advance of myself discussing climate science in depth.

I also fairly often visit the Met O Library in Exeter. I really do not get the feeling the place is dishonest, lacking in scientific openness or objectivity.

Finally, you say you don't think the effect of CO2 Methane is anything like what the models say. Why? Where is the science in the second presentation of my link wrong?

Edited December 12, 2011 by Devonian

[Methuselah]

Nothing about *why* a small increase is observed, and a lot about Urban Heat Island growth.

But the Heat Island phenomenon has been known of for donkey's, and is routinely factored into (or out of) temperature data. It is not a problem.

[loafer]

Devonian,

I will take a look, but there will be a delay as I am travelling on business for a couple of days.

In the meantime, briefly I would say that my comment on the impact of models is simply that the models have been repeatedly shown to be wrong in hindsight.

Even the recent IPCC update summary, which I commented on positively elsewhere on here as a step forward in objectivity, makes it clear that the models which predicted continued temperature growth as a result of AGW will not be borne out in the short/medium term and that and AGW factors will be lost in the noise of other factors.

In terms of science, I would respectfully suggest that the better the scientist, the less able they are at PR and spin and therefore the smaller the chance of being heard...

Loafer

[Waterspout]

I didn't realise people still argued about 'whether' we had 20 years of Warming from 1980 to 2000, but rather what caused it! Hadley is widely reported as saying Global Warming with restart again from 2012 with vigour, so we need to see whether that science proves correct or not, based on their model projections. Although my past analysis of their decadal forecasts still show we are quite a way behind the projection they made in 2005. We really need to be breaking new global records every 1-3 years, and this is not happening really since 1998.

I will be interested to see the new HadCrut 4 readjustment, apparently it brings ther Hadley dataset more in line with GISS and NOAA. So any rise in temperature in the future might actually be from them altering the calculation. I think this will cause a storm no doubt! And may be their prediction of a sudden renewed warming from 2012 is because they already knew how HadCrut 4 was going to be altered to show this 'new' warming ;-/

Edited December 13, 2011 by Waterspout

[Gray-Wolf]

I think we need accept that the 'denialist' will try and pose an impossible conundrum to disprove AGW. Strip out 'natural' and they have no argument on the warming that occured (or what common piece of sports equipment it favours?)

The real issue today is the CH4 plot. We have a huge spike in CH4 recorded by the Azores station this Sept but folk appear to be dismissing it as 'equipment error'??? Is not Methane a 'heavier than air' gas? to see it's 'flow' do we not look at wind patterns? Have we not had a constant 'blow' out of Fram this autumn? Would this not lead any gas into the Atlantic (and not Pacific) Basin.

When measuring Arctic Methane should we not be considering such?

[songster]

Methane is lighter than air

[Gray-Wolf]

Methane is lighter than air

Well that's me done then? As such we have to look at upper level winds for distribution then? (I'm angling after the direction that any 'plume' of methane may have taken?)

[Methuselah]

Methane is lighter than air

Which implies what, exactly? That it'll all magically float out into space?

[Gray-Wolf]

Hi Pete! I'm trying to figure out how Methane dissipates across the globe from a single point of emission. It appears that most data has quite a time lag on it so it's hard to get an accurate picture of 'now'?

If methane is able to act like a volcanic 'plume' then you'd expect it to slowly work it's way into the system but would show elevated readings in some area and not others as this process was ongoing?

If we do have an sudden increase in outputs from the Siberian shelf area then surely some of the measuring stations are picking up on this 'increase'?

[Methuselah]

Hi G-W. That is a tall order, I think. Even though I can't see your hypothesis being incorrect, analysing the data would be hugely difficult. But, I think that as methane is a gas, unlike volcanic ash, it'd diffuse into the atmosphere until some kind of spatial vapour-pressure equilibrium is reached. On the other hand, who knows?

[BornFromTheVoid]

It seems the Brewer-Dobson circulation is involved in methane transport and distribution.

http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/~lizsmith/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_6/6_3.htm

[Gray-Wolf]

Thanks for that BFTV. It's such a shame that we do not seem to be able to access monthly reports from the world network of measuring stations as this would ease some folks pangs as to whether we are looking at an abrupt increase , over last year, of concentrations above the Arctic?

If the changes occuring are as dynamic as this 'soundbite' from the AGU suggests (with a ten fold increase in the scale of the structures producing the methane) then the increase in methane should be instantly recognisable?....if only we had the measurments to dismiss ,or confirm such?