Man Made Climate Change - Evidence Based Discussion

[Devonian]

I don't get it. Either the world is warming or it is not. We have had no global warming since 1998.

But, Stew, we've had a lot of global warming since 1985 - about .5C in 25 years since then, which would be perhaps 2C in a century. Why is my cherry pick any less valid than yours? Edited August 25, 2014 by Devonian

[cheeky_monkey]

No global warming since 1999? Nah, here's the smoking gun.

http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/no-warming-1999-nah-smokinggun.html

 

And you can do your own to avoid the cherry picking

 

http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

 

It seems to me one can either accept this, along with other indicators, or you don't. Apart from global warming there are other pressing reasons for cutting CO₂ emissions such as the death toll and damage to health from pollution.

 

http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/cutting-carbon-health-care-savings-0824

I find it interesting that looking at decadal trends over my lifetime every decade shows a slow warming trend apart from the 1990s which shows a marked increase and then back to a slow warming trend 2000-2010..also this decade so far is actually showing a marked cooling unless im reading it wrong?

[BornFromTheVoid]

I find it interesting that looking at decadal trends over my lifetime every decade shows a slow warming trend apart from the 1990s which shows a marked increase and then back to a slow warming trend 2000-2010..also this decade so far is actually showing a marked cooling unless im reading it wrong?

 

I think global temp anomaly for the first 3.5 years or so of this decade are equal to the 2001-2010 period at +0.58C, going by NASA's numbers. However, given that we've had a long run of ENSO -ve values up to March this year and a strong/moderate La Nina in 2011, we really should be lower. If we manage to get an El Nino this Autumn the average of this decade so far should leap ahead of the others.

[knocker]

Nick Stokes clearing up the attacks on BOM by the usual culprits.

 

  Adjusting Amberley - as it must be

[4wd]

It's compelling in that if a station doesn't show warming they adjust it so it does?Maybe that's what you mean?What other evidence is given for a need to adjust - other than they want it to match other stations which show warming.

[knocker]

It's compelling in that if a station doesn't show warming they adjust it so it does?Maybe that's what you mean?What other evidence is given for a need to adjust - other than they want it to match other stations which show warming.

 

And their reason for allegedly doing this? Plus the evidence to support your statement would be useful and also why you don't agree with Nick Stoke's explanation.

[Devonian]

It's compelling in that if a station doesn't show warming they adjust it so it does?Maybe that's what you mean?What other evidence is given for a need to adjust - other than they want it to match other stations which show warming.

You think it's more likely all the other stations are wrong than the odd one out (which also has a step chance in it's record) is wrong? Edited August 26, 2014 by Devonian

[knocker]

In view of some very recent 'scientific revelations' in the arctic thread I thought it about time to come back to earth, so to speak. So regarding global energy budgets an excellent start is an article by Kevin Trenberth and the paper he refers to in it. Easy subject it is not.

 

Trenberth on Tracking Earth’s energy: A key to climate variability and change

 

Earth's Annual Mean Global Energy Budget

 

http://www.geo.utexas.edu/courses/387h/PAPERS/kiehl.pdf

Edited September 9, 2014 by knocker

[Methuselah]

It's compelling in that if a station doesn't show warming they adjust it so it does? Maybe that's what you mean? What other evidence is given for a need to adjust - other than they want it to match other stations which show warming.

And, the evidence for that particular accusation of scientific fraud is where, precisely?? Or are we being surreptitiously directed back toward that laughable climategate malarkey...?

 

It disnae matter how many time one repeats a lie: it is still a lie!

[stewfox]

And, the evidence for that particular accusation of scientific fraud is where, precisely?? Or are we being surreptitiously directed back toward that laughable climategate malarkey...?

 

It disnae matter how many time one repeats a lie: it is still a lie!

 

Correcting a cool bias (even if has merit) to me will always raise questions.

 

----------------------

 

The most important bias in the U.S. temperature record occurred with the systematic change in observing times from the afternoon, when it is warm, to morning, when it is cooler. This shift has resulted in a well documented increasing cool bias over the last several decades and is addressed by applying a correction to the data.

 

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/temperature-monitoring.php

[Geoffwood]

knocker,

"Posted 09 September 2014 - 11:42

In view of some very recent 'scientific revelations' in the arctic thread I thought it about time to come back to earth, so to speak. So regarding global energy budgets an excellent start is an article by Kevin Trenberth and the paper he refers to in it. Easy subject it is not."

Care to take up the discussion again then, on this thread?

[Geoffwood]

Even NASA, get this one wrong, the moon's grey body temperature is 271K. NASA label it as the moon's 'black body temperature!!!!

The calculation involves the moon's true emissivity of 0.95, so it's not a a black body! Laughable! But sickening.

If we then acknowledge that the Earth's surface temperature is 288K. Then if I am correct then the total atmospheric thermal enhancement is 17K. If NASA is correct the enhancement is less, because the moon isn't a black body.

[Geoffwood]

knocker, go wave this in front of a physics professor. See if he disagrees.

[Geoffwood]

I'll disassemble Trenburth's energy budget and disclose all of your unfounded 'faith' in this man's 'adopted' science.

All you have to do is find fault in my reasoning.

Awaiting your reply, knocker.

Edited September 18, 2014 by Geoffwood

[Geoffwood]

By the way. People believe, do they not that the effect of 'greenhouse gases' enhances the surface temperature by 33K. Now I am stating that the total effect of having an atmosphere is no more than 17K. Fact.

Show that I am incorrect.

[Geoffwood]

knocker, see what I am doing. I am pulling the foundations of you fiction out from under your feet. I'm pulling effortlessly 50% of the 'greenhouse effect' from under your feet. Once you are founded on fiction buddy, you are unfounded. Fact.

I haven't even started on Trenburth's fiction yet. Awaiting your reply.

[Geoffwood]

knocker. Even if I give you a 'golden opportunity' to calculate the Earth's theoretical temperature without an atmosphere and return reporting my post contained an error, you fail to take advantage! NASA's black body temperature is correct!

I conclude that you do not know how to easily calculate this figure(?). The Earth's temperature without an atmosphere calculated from lunar albedo (0.12) and emissivity of lunar rock (0.96) is 273K (grey body effective temperature). Not 271K.

So, the total surface enhancement, irrespective of process, due to having this atmosphere on Earth is limited to within 15K (288-273). Not 33K as is popularly believed!

That's 55% of the 'effect' vanished into thin air!

You're very quiet, are you ok?

[Interitus]

Your argument is predicated upon a false premise, Earth has a higher albedo than the moon.

[Methuselah]

By the way. People believe, do they not that the effect of 'greenhouse gases' enhances the surface temperature by 33K. Now I am stating that the total effect of having an atmosphere is no more than 17K. Fact.

Show that I am incorrect.

Won't changing any single one of your chosen start-points negate everything you say?

[Polar Maritime]

You're very quiet, are you ok?

The way you are trying to conduct the conversation, Im not surprised one bit that knock isn't responding!

[Geoffwood]

Interitus, thanks for your comments. To reply to your earlier comment wrt the 'freezing' of sea water. Your reply was valid in that sea water freezes at a lower temperature than pure water. However, sea ice once formed is pure water so I should have worded my temperature reference around the 'melting' of sea ice as being a calibration point. Thanks for correcting me.

For your second,

"Your argument is predicated upon a false premise, Earth has a higher albedo than the moon."

The Earth's surface albedo Interitus, without an atmosphere is that of the moon. It's the same rock. Go and check Trenburth's energy diagram for surface albedo. It shows that of the incoming flux transmitted by the atmosphere the surface spatially averaged absorbs 161Wm-2 and reflects 23Wm-2. The surface albedo with ice and deserts and foliage and ocean is therefore (23/(23+161))= 0.125 cf 0.12 for the moon. According to Kevin anyway.

The increase in the Earth's albedo from without an atmosphere (0.12) to with an atmosphere (0.29) is due to the atmosphere. I'm simply pointing out that heralding a component like water for heating the surface as the major GHG component without realising that it already stops a very significant amount of energy from directly heating the surface is unfairly biased.

[Geoffwood]

Mrs Trellis hi. Thanks for the reply.

You say,

"Won't changing any single one of your chosen start-points negate everything you say?"

Which ones are variables, Mrs Trellis?

I am making a direct comparison. My point is to evaluate the total effect of having an atmosphere upon surface temperatures. It is less than people believe.

Do you have a problem with using a parallel experiment for validation?

You have made an excellent point about start up conditions because Trenburth's energy diagram fails completely if we alter the start conditions. But we'll get to that in due course.

[Geoffwood]

Polar Maritime,

"The way you are trying to conduct the conversation, Im not surprised one bit that knock isn't responding! "

My apologies. I will endeavour to remain civil. Wrist slapped!

[BornFromTheVoid]

 

BFTV....

When I sent my reply above I had already checked the anamoly for the latest period and hence I knew that what I had depicted for Europe and America was true. Yet you still attacked me personally for pointing out that the graph was cherry picking in the extreme. I had already checked the data!!!!!!!

What are you afraid of? If the climate/world is warming you wouldn't have to resort to such tactics as the data would show it and I would quite happily accept it!

Anyway my main points were -

1) That the graph presented by Interitus was cherry picked (you have proved this to be true above!

2) That everymonth 'adjustments" are made to historical data by GISS and NOAA, only giving one effect (By reducing pre 1950 temps and increasing the 1950 to 1980 data.). The above two 'data keepers' have both teams of people checking and correcting data. Even the recent Aug figures have adjusted upwards 4 of the last 25 years - by NOAA starting in the 1990's.

I do believe that the climate is warming, but (and I think there are more and more people like me - the silent unknowns), who are seeing through this CAGW propaganda.

Anyway. enough of this on a very good Antartic thread .....
I will say no more.

MIA

 

Yep, this really sounds like you knew that the baseline could be changed. No conspiracy theories in play here...

 

"I understand why the baseline compsrison It is set at 1951 - 1980.!!

Oh no it just happens to have been the coldest 30 years in the last 65 years.

Pure coincidence I am absolutely certain.

This is the well known technique employed to hide the current hiatus."

 

1: How was the image cherry picked? Interitus posted it to make a point about Antarctica, not about Europe, remember.

 

2: Do you know why the adjustments are made? Can you state why homogenisation techniques applied to data are incorrect?

 

It's an odd thing that even when a "sceptic" led team, funded by "sceptics", examined the temperature record in a huge project and found their results to be in almost exact agreement with NASA, NCDC, etc, that the "climate sceptics" still can't accept the temperature record, Of course I'm talking about the BEST temperature record.

Remember Watts, before it was completed?

"I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet."

 

Then after... he dismissed the BEST study because it hadn't gone through peer review, while citing his own unpublished study for additional evidence! 

“Unfortunately he has not succeeded in terms of how science views, you know, a successful inquiry. His papers have not passed peer review.â€

 

I think some people are genuine scientific sceptics, like Richard Muller. He had questions about the temperatures record and rather than simply turning to conspiracy theories, he investigated it, found answers and changed his view accordingly. Then you have many "climate sceptics". This particular branch of "scepticism" chooses to resort to conspiracy theories rather than attempt to even ask questions. When data is provided that shows their conspiracy theories to be false, they attack the source or call on more conspiracy theories to justify their original conspiracies! 

 

I think all the self proclaimed "sceptics" here should consider which category they fall into.

 

[Midlands Ice Age]

BFTV.....

Wasn't going to respond, BUT you seem detrermined to make it personal....

Interitus has agreed that the chart was cherry picked and showed world tenperatures (I only used Europe and America as examples I knew about), were much higher (look at Antartica also) than the current figures show. This is a normal practice used by CAGW followers, you may think its Ok, but its a form of data manipulation to show things in the best light to strengthen the case.

As for the data being checked and corrected. I reckon (but I havn't checked) that by a factor of about 4 to 1 you will find the changes support a CAGW policy. Why is this? I am a simple guy and my expectations would have been about 50:50 up and down. Certainly in August all the adjustments were up on NOAA.

I am interested in getting presentatiuon of correct data. Not continually adjusted data for a political cause. If the climate prooves your case of huge CO2 impact is correct then fine by me.... but please lets not have to look at all one-way adjusted data. I have no axe to grind one way or the other in my views, but you seem to view me as a skeptical heretic. That is the problem that the CAGW people are having. Anyone not total believers are heretics.

This approach WILL lose the battle for you if things do not show your rapid global warming in the next 5 years. I hope the above is helpful for your cause, but I doubt that you will see it that way!!

MIA

Edited September 20, 2014 by Midlands Ice Age