Scepticism Of Man Made Climate Change

[Methuselah]

C02 and it's "warming properties" is also beneficial to humankind given that fact that cold weather kills more people than warm weather.

That is also true...

[BornFromTheVoid]

Eh? And I thought I was highly critical of some modes of scientific discovery. TBH this is really scraping the bottom of the barrel of put-downs. How do you propose to reduce degrees of freedom unless it's in a controlled environment. Do you think that stuff (like CO2 absorption and emmisivity) only works in a controlled lab and not anywhere else?

 

Given that nitrogen constitutes 78% of the atmosphere, are you suggesting that not only we are warming the planet, but we are also using up the atmosphere?

 

Easy now. I'm pointing out that many self proclaimed "sceptics" use the reasoning that the CO2 absorbtion spectra is only applicable in controlled environments, because the real world is just too complicated.

These same people are now claiming that when plants are administered additional CO2 in a controlled setting and grow a bit more, that that these results are perfectly ok to apply that to the rest of the world. Hypocrisy? Contradiction?

Apologies if that wasn't clear enough.

[VillagePlank]

Easy now. I'm pointing out that many self proclaimed "sceptics" use the reasoning that the CO2 absorbtion spectra is only applicable in controlled environments, because the real world is just too complicated.

These same people are now claiming that when plants are administered additional CO2 in a controlled setting and grow a bit more, that that these results are perfectly ok to apply that to the rest of the world. Hypocrisy? Contradiction?

Apologies if that wasn't clear enough.

 

No worries  Yes, there does seem to be a a bit of that around.

[knocker]

I've just been reading a preview of the programme on the great Richard Feynman, one of the most influential scientists of the 20th century. He was never short of a word or two as I was reminded of one of his quotes.

 

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts".

[keithlucky]

This is from Minnisota were winter won"t let go in some parts ,This video looks likes advancing glaciers! fascinating to watch

[BornFromTheVoid]

keithlucky, this section of the forum is for sceptics to air their views, not a place for you to post weather reports 

Edited May 12, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[keithlucky]

C02 and it's "warming properties" is also beneficial to humankind given that fact that cold weather kills more people than warm weather.

Funny that global temperatures haven"t risen 16 years yet co2 has risen but no temperatures rise, so you saying that co2 have  warming properties.

Edited May 12, 2013 by keithlucky

[knocker]

That is also true...

 

I think the jury is still out on that. Remember the extreme heat in 2003 in the European heatwave , according to the World Heath Organisation, it was estimated that the extreme heat caused caused more than 15,000 excess deaths in France, Portugal and Italy alone., There have also been some studies in the US on this, particularly on the social disaster in Chicago in 1995.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Funny that global temperatures haven"t risen 16 years yet co2 has risen but no temperatures rise, so you saying that co2 have  warming properties.

 

Just to be clear, temperatures have risen, it's just too short a timespan to be considered statistically significant.

 

.............HadCRUT4 last 16 years ............ ............. UAH last 16 years

 

 

Not arguing a viewpoint here, just correcting a somewhat minor error in your post.

Edited May 12, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid

[VillagePlank]

Funny that global temperatures haven"t risen 16 years yet co2 has risen but no temperatures rise, so you saying that co2 have  warming properties.

 

The rate of change of temperature anomalies is currently falling, here.

 

So we are still increasing, but at a reduced rate. We do have a temperature rise, as BFTV has shown over the 16 years, at a whopping 0.0091^oC/Yr. If you make the chart less wide, the trend line looks steeper, too. So, yes, at this current 16 year rate, the global temperature will rise by ... wait for it ..... 0.9^oC. But beware extrapoloations, since they are rarely accurate and/or correct, so the 100Yr rate is for illustration purposes only.

 

Now, this rise is significant (since HadCRUT4 now gives global averages to three decimal places) but only just by just under 1/100th/degree. I wouldn't want to stand at the sides and point it out too loudly since this rate is well within the realms of simple noise and could go either way.

 

EDIT: The above was for annual averages. Here's the chart for monthly averages,

 

 

(The data is from Jan 1996 to Dec 2012)

 

This also shows increasing anomalies; however this one comes in at a whooping 0.0007^oC! Yes, you read it right, by 7/10,000th degC/Yr

 

So it is factually correct to say "the temperature is increasing" .... but come on guys ....

Edited May 13, 2013 by Sparkicle

[BornFromTheVoid]

The rate of change of temperature anomalies is currently falling, here.

 

So we are still increasing, but at a reduced rate. We do have a temperature rise, as BFTV has shown over the 16 years, at a whopping 0.0091^oC/Yr. If you make the chart less wide, the trend line looks steeper, too. So, yes, at this current 16 year rate, the global temperature will rise by ... wait for it ..... 0.9^oC/Yr. But beware extrapoloations, since they are rarely accurate and/or correct, so the 100Yr rate is for illustration purposes only.

 

Now, this rise is significant (since HadCRUT4 now gives global averages to three decimal places) but only just by just under 1/100th/degree. I wouldn't want to stand at the sides and point it out too loudly since this rate is well within the realms of simple noise and could go either way.

 

EDIT: The above was for annual averages. Here's the chart for monthly averages,

 

hadcrut4_16years.png

 

(The data is from Jan 1996 to Dec 2012)

 

This also shows increasing anomalies; however this one comes in at a whooping 0.0007^oC! Yes, you read it right, by 7/10,000th degC/Yr

 

So it is factually correct to say "the temperature is increasing" .... but come on guys ....

 

In any scientific endeavour, you examine all the related data, not just a small subsection that supports a predetermined conclusion

[VillagePlank]

In any scientific endeavour, you examine all the related data, not just a small subsection that supports a predetermined conclusion

 

Yes, I would reject the 16 year period as a suitable measuring timespan. Primarily because the anomaly series is based on a 30 year period; so we already have a defacto standard for measurement periods.

 

Just pointing out that the claim temperatures have increased over 16 years is correct, but only just

[VillagePlank]

Here's the 30 year monthly series from HadCRU4,

 

 

Which gives us an increasing rate of 0.001^oC/Yr.

 

Here is the IPCC 2007 list of climate drivers,

 

 

which gives a percentage impact of,

 

 

Giving us by far that CO₂ is by far the primary driver of climate.

 

CO₂ levels have increased (from Jan 1982 to Dec 2012) from 341ppm to 394ppm and increase of +53ppm. At the same time the temperature has increased by 0.042^oC. So, at the most recent climate change rate (last 30 years) each CO₂ ppm drives climate by 0.0008^oC. A doubling of the 1982 CO₂ value therefore leads to climate change of 0.27^oC.

 

Of course, it's not as simple as that, but this does rather lead to the question, where is the 1.5-4.5 ^oC rate of CO₂ sensitivity? The theory doesn't appear to match observations, and questions such as these are not only valid, they are required. One does wonder whether the rather offensive label "denier" has been appropriated to avoid answering questions such as these.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Sparkicle

[BornFromTheVoid]

Here's the 30 year monthly series from HadCRU4,

 

hadcrut4_30year.png

 

Which gives us an increasing rate of 0.001^oC/Yr.

 

Here is the IPCC 2007 list of climate drivers,

 

figure-spm-2-l.png

 

which gives a percentage impact of,

 

pct.png

 

Giving us by far that CO₂ is by far the primary driver of climate.

 

CO₂ levels have increased (from Jan 1982 to Dec 2012) from 341ppm to 394ppm and increase of +53ppm. At the same time the temperature has increased by 0.042^oC. So, at the most recent climate change rate (last 30 years) each CO₂ ppm drives climate by 0.0008^oC. A doubling of the 1982 CO₂ rate therefore leads to climate change of 0.27^oC.

 

Of course, it's not as simple as that, but this does rather lead to the question, where is the 1.5-4.5 ^oC rate of CO₂ sensitivity? The theory doesn't appear to match observations, and questions such as these are not only valid, they are required.

 

Was the temperature increase no 0.42C over that time? And the rate of increase 0.014C/year? The sensitivity (with regard to CO2) isn't the immediate reaction to CO2 input to the atmosphere, but the equilibrium temperature.

[VillagePlank]

Was the temperature increase no 0.42C over that time? And the rate of increase 0.014C/year? The sensitivity (with regard to CO2) isn't the immediate reaction to CO2 input to the atmosphere, but the equilibrium temperature.

 

0.0014 (by regression) * 30 = 0.042 ??? Maybe one shouldn't do it using regression, but, in reality, this bias' the analysis towards the AGW hypothesis because of the drop off in anomalies towards the end of the series, even though the resulting conclusion might question it. It's entirely possible that I've misunderstood the sensitivity parameter ....

Edited May 13, 2013 by Sparkicle

[VillagePlank]

In case anyone thinks the above analysis is cherry picking, I've gone back as far as I can get CO₂ measurements,

 

 

(Jan 1959 .. Dec 2012)

 

Rate of increase is 0.00105, rounded to 0.0011. CO₂ was 316ppm in 1959 and 393ppm in 2012, so a temperature increase of 0.0011 * 53 years = 0.0583^oC was caused by an increase of 77ppm of CO₂, giving us that each ppm causes 0.0007^oC. Multiplying this back into the 1959 CO₂ value we get a sensitivity rate of 0.218 ^oC for the 1959 value or 0.271^oC for the 2012 value which is broadly similar to the 30 year analysis.

Edited May 13, 2013 by Sparkicle

[BornFromTheVoid]

Something seems off to me. That warming rate would suggest just a 0.18C increase since 1880, when we've seen closer to a 0.8C increase?

 

Perhaps skipping a nights sleep isn't helping

[VillagePlank]

Yes, I did mention that the regression might not be the way to do it. I've a stinking hangover so it's well feasible that I am barking at the moon/barking up the wrong tree!

[BornFromTheVoid]

Just tried it in excel using the GISS data and linest function, and got a trend of 0.016C/year since 1980???

[VillagePlank]

Can you try it using 1,2,3,4 ...n rather than 1880,1881,1882 .. 2012 it changes input into the linear regression model, if I recall correctly with Excel.

 

I don't personally use Excel, I use Gnumeric and my own code, of course. Just for completeness, this is how I calculate it (and there could well be a bug in there, too!!)

 

 CREATE PROCEDURE Linear_LeastSquares -- Given a data set ( a table of points ) this routine computes m and b-- of y=mx+b, the linear regression, and also the r-squared value of how-- well the model matches the original data @Data POINTS READONLY,@m NUMBER OUTPUT,@b NUMBER  OUTPUT,@r2 NUMBER OUTPUTASSET NOCOUNT ON DECLARE @N NUMBERDECLARE @SUM_X NUMBERDECLARE @SUM_Y NUMBERDECLARE @SUM_XY NUMBERDECLARE @SUM_X2 NUMBERDECLARE @SUM_Y2 NUMBERDECLARE @SUM2_X NUMBERDECLARE @SUM2_Y NUMBERDECLARE @AVG_Y NUMBERDECLARE @AVG_X NUMBER SET @N = (SELECT COUNT(*) FROM @Data)SET @SUM_X = (SELECT SUM(x) FROM @Data)SET @SUM_Y = (SELECT SUM(y) FROM @Data)SET @SUM_XY = (SELECT SUM(x * y) FROM @Data)SET @SUM_X2 = (SELECT SUM(x * x) FROM @Data)SET @SUM_Y2 = (SELECT SUM(y * y) FROM @Data)SET @AVG_Y = (@SUM_Y / @N)SET @AVG_X = (@SUM_X / @N)SET @SUM2_X = (@SUM_X * @SUM_X)SET @SUM2_Y = (@SUM_Y * @SUM_Y) SET @m = (((@N * @SUM_XY) - (@SUM_X * @SUM_Y)) / ((@N * @SUM_X2) - @SUM2_X)) SET @b = (@AVG_Y - ((@N * @SUM_XY) - (@SUM_X * @SUM_Y)) / ((@N * @SUM_X2) - @SUM2_X) * @AVG_X) SET @r2 = ((@SUM_XY - ((@SUM_X * @SUM_Y) / @N)) / SQRT((@SUM_X2 - (@SUM2_X / @N)) * (@SUM_Y2 - (@SUM2_Y / @N))))SET @r2 = @r2 * @r2 GO

Edited May 13, 2013 by Sparkicle

[BornFromTheVoid]

Can you try it using 1,2,3,4 ...n rather than 1880,1881,1882 .. 2012 it changes input into the linear regression model, if I recall correctly with Excel.

 

I don't personally use Excel, I use Gnumeric and my own code, of course.

 

"linest" doesn't use the dates, just the, in this case, temperature data.

 

But doing as you say, graphing, and getting the linear trend equation, I get y=0.016x +0.1213 for 1980-2012

[VillagePlank]

"linest" doesn't use the dates, just the, in this case, temperature data.

 

But doing as you say, graphing, and getting the linear trend equation, I get y=0.016x +0.1213 for 1980-2012

 

Reproduced your results in Gnumeric. I was using monthly values, and, I suspect, you are using average annual values like wot I just did:

 

 

An order of magnitude difference between monthly, and annual values!

Edited May 13, 2013 by Sparkicle

[BornFromTheVoid]

Reproduced your results in Gnumeric. I was using monthly values, and, I suspect, you are using average annual values like wot I just did:

 

annual.png

 

An order of magnitude difference between monthly, and annual values!

 

Ah, of course!

 

So going back to the original graph from 1980, the 0.0014C per month increase does equal about 0.0166C/year, or an increase of 0.55C since 1980.

[VillagePlank]

Using the same method as above (but using annual rather than monthly) gives us 

 

Jan 1980 = 338ppm

Dec 2012 = 393ppm

 

Change of 55ppm over 32 years.

 

Rate of temperature change = 0.0158C, total change over period = 0.5056C which gives us 0.5056/55 = 0.0092C/ppm. Standardising* at 560ppm gives us a sensitivity of 560ppm * 0.0092C = 5.14C !!! Assuming that CO2 is the only driver of climate which it isn't so this must be the maximum upper bound estimate which is broadly in line with current theory. If one assumes like before that CO2 is about 90% responsibile for climate then the maximum upper bound estimate can be lowered to be 5.14 * 0.9 = 4.626C

 

That's another question of mine resolved, ticked off the list!

 

 

*(I realised when I was trying to find the problem that the sensitivity is standardised at 560ppm (ie a doubling since pre-industrial times))

Edited May 13, 2013 by Sparkicle

[BornFromTheVoid]

Using the same method as above (but using annual rather than monthly) gives us 

 

Jan 1980 = 338ppm

Dec 2012 = 393ppm

 

Change of 55ppm over 32 years.

 

Rate of temperature change = 0.0158C, total change over period = 0.5056C which gives us 0.5056/55 = 0.0092C/ppm. Standardising* at 560ppm gives us a sensitivity of 560ppm * 0.0092C = 5.14C !!! Assuming that CO2 is the only driver of climate.

 

That's another question of mine resolved, ticked off the list!

 

*(I realised when I was trying to find the problem that the sensitivity is standardised at 560ppm (ie a doubling since pre-industrial times))

 

Wouldn't it be 0.0092C * 280ppm? or 2.58C? Since we're starting from 280ppm rather than 0ppm?

Edited May 13, 2013 by BornFromTheVoid