Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Here comes the next ice age (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: Here comes the next ice age
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But you've been engaged, since I posted the link, in slandering and misrepresenting the person who critiqued the paper... "

Actually no.

G2 provided a link to a peer reviewed paper & a link to the man's bona-fides.

In rebuttal, you posted a blog page and a wiki on G2's author.

As a reader, if I am to weigh the validity of your source, I need to know something about him. It wasn't readily apparent from the page. Why?

I posted:

"So from a email address and a link to an external paper, his post was otherwise devoid of any identification."

To which, you replied:

"He posts there frequently. Instead of retyping the same **** everytime, he has an "about me" section that is easily accessible to people who want to find out who rasmus benestad is."

So where on the page you posted is the "about me" link? (There isn't one) Where is it on the blog page that he identifies himself as Rasmus Benestad? (He doesn't) Unless of course you happen to scroll the page down and notice as you read the body of his article's text, that off to the right is a list of "Contributors" with his name attributed as "Rasmus Benestad". Why would I assume that this would be his name?

Now exactly why should I know or even notice this fact when he only offers someone the indirect attribution in the paper "(Benestad 2004)"? Following that link he identifies himself as "R. E. Benestad -The Norwegian Meteorological Institute, PO Box 43, 0313 Oslo, Norway


Where at this point would I have discovered further information about him on Real Climate if I still did not know his first name? Or for that matter why would I have assumed that he was one and the same person on the contributer sidebar link? Especially since at that point I had already followed the Benestad 2004 citation to a PDF document that offered no further clue as to his identity?

At that point I plugged him into Google and Ask and began trying to identify who he was by crosslinking the name I had "R. E. Benestad" with the other citations that either used the same name, were involved with the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, or offered both pieces of evidence to ultimately provide his full name.

Point is Paul, I investigated, found his bonafieds and found out that-contrary to your aggressive assumptions as to him being eminately qualified- he is a meteorologist employed at the Norwegian equivalent of NOAA who has published 29 peer reviewed papers that mostly deal with precipitation.

Exactly how does that qualify him as a counter to G2's source? And for that matter, if the methodology is so flawed, why did Lettrip notice that one of the issues your source took with G2's paper, is apparently an error on your sources part?

Not really sure why you are trying to represent my attempt to identify your blogger as being anything other than what it was. You provided an essentially unidentified blog author- and simply expected everyone reading your source to accept that person's opinion without any determination as to even who he was.

I don't even care about either argument. All I cared about was who was making it. G2 did the nice favor of providing background. You didn't.

The fact that others who are actually interested in the content of his rebuttal have already found flaws in the rebuttal tends to support my point of view that the experts cited by you and G2 are not of the same calibre. Yours happens in this case to be the lesser calibre.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seriously, why would you care who was the "higher calibre" scientist?

That's the dumbest argument from authority I've heard recently.

If someone has good research methodology and makes plausible, support claims based on their data analysis, he is doing good science. If someone points out possible methodological flaws in the research of someone else, he is also doing good science.
What either of these guys has done before is of no relevance whatsoever, except inasmuch as we would want to know that they both had degrees showing an understanding of the underlying concepts, and neither had a history of grossly falsifying data.

Honestly. It's like the "truth" or "falsity" of what is going on with anthropogenic climate change rests on whether Michaels or Rasmus has a larger academic cock.
Give it up.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why?

Because as you people engage in the pissing contest over who has the better theory, the one constant has been who has the better scientist. And this just happens to be the one time, that in Paul's particular case, he isn't shooting with a very large calibre gun.

So in this case where we have a peer reviewed climatologist vs a meteorologist blogger, I think its kinda important to point out that the AGW rebuttal offered up so far, happens to come from someone who isn't a heavyweight in the subject.

He may be right in his rebuttal. But then again he probably isn't because LR has already found a problem with the rebuttal.

Its called honest debate. One has presented a paper reviewed and accepted by his peers as authoritative- that just happens to disagree with the current AGW theories. The other has posted a blog and dismissed it because there are errors in it.

I think I'll go with the peer review process instead of what some blogger says.

Then again I remeber Paul arguing rather pointedly before that a peer reviewed paper and scientist should always be more important than a non-peer reviewed scientist, blogger, or journalist.

Apparently when it isn't convenient to the AGW theory, presenting a peer reviewed paper counts as less worthy of belief than a blogger.

Think on that a bit. The AGW crowd wants to have its peer reviewed scientists totally agreed as being worthy and honest- and dismiss those scientists who although peer reviewed otherwise can't be trusted because they present anything in a journal that disagrees with AGW.

Just keeping you AGW advocates as honest as the standards you have implied upon those who have argued against you.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Redskullvw:
Think on that a bit. The AGW crowd wants to have its peer reviewed scientists totally agreed as being worthy and honest- and dismiss those scientists who although peer reviewed otherwise can't be trusted because they present anything in a journal that disagrees with AGW.

It goes quite a bit further than simple dismissal. Simple dismissal is like how everard labels any scientist not agreeing with him as not being a "real scientist". If only this was as far as it went but it goes much further:
quote:
... Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats since he started questioning whether man was affecting climate change. Richard Lindzen, professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, said, "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labeled as industry stooges." Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said, "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Redskullvw
Member
Member # 188

 - posted      Profile for Redskullvw   Email Redskullvw   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2

I am well aware of that fact. Your side always brings that fact up when one of these threads goes in this direction. My only point was in terms of how the AGW supporters who post on Ornery have previously framed the ground rules for debate and rebuttal on this topic. You lived up to those rules that they have imposed by presenting a peer reviewed paper, that was published in a journal, by an accredited and credentialed scientist who happens to be degreed in climatology. Your adversary posted a blog article, identified only by email, on a partisan website, by a person who ultimately did not meet the standards that have been insisted upon by the members of Ornery who support AGW theory.

I don't really care what the content of either of your weblinks. Or the actual arguments contained therein for or against AGW. But, it seemed rather unfair as far as debate goes, to see yet again, standards that are applied to you by the people you are debating with, somehow are not applied in an equal and reciprocal manner. If you are required to use only journaled peer reviewed content for the pro, then they should likewise be constrained when advocating the con.

Posts: 6333 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
mdgann,

quote:


Did anyone ever call LR on this one?
I don't have time right now to read this entire topic.
Actually, angle of the earth to the suns rays has a much "bigger driver". In the summer we are farther from the sun and closer in the winter. In summer the suns rays hit us much more directly and contribute more of their energy to warming the earth than in the winter when we are closer but receive a glancing blow.

We are talking global mean temperature. I could be mistaken but I believe that will only impact the seasonal variations expected by each hemisphere but shouldn't have a significant impact on global mean temperature.

However, I still misspoke since I should have said either 'average distance from the sun'; 'time weighted average distance from the sun'; or best eccentricity of the earths orbit.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2,

quote:
There it is, in your own words. You're just soooooo smart and everyone else is stupid.
You've confused 'smart' with 'knowledgable'.

I am smart [Smile] But on this topic I also happen to be quite knowledge due to significant time invested in studying the topic. I have a heavy background in mathematics (and reasonable background in statistics, and modeling), chemistry, physics, and a great deal of climate and environment specific knowledge.

You aren't dumb, but as I recall you lack sufficient background in any of the relevant areas to be able to read the papers and understand what is being said (just like hand me a book in Russian and even if it is a grade school primer I'll not be able to do anything useful with it).

quote:
Only you and those that support your views are intelligent enough to understand the "science" behind AGW.
Actually there are a number of individuals who oppose AGW who are 'knowledgable' in the topic (or a related specialty that is relevant enough to make a critique) - McKintrick (and to lesser extent Michaels), and Lindzen for instance occasionally make interesting critiques.

quote:
I dunno LR, when the foundation of your argument is that everyone else is just too stupid to understand it sounds like you've run out of anything intelligent to say. But maybe I'm jist two stoopid to unerstend yor brilance. Yor so smart ...
Are you a wheat farmer? I've never seen someone construct so many strawmen in such a short period of time [Smile]

Feel free to address my actual arguments instead of the fantasy arguments you've constructed.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2,

quote:
We're around 54° F today which LR, everard, et al assure us is too high and going any higher would result in catastrophe.
I'm getting rather annoyed at you falsely attributing claims, statements, and view to me. I've never stated or implied any of the above.

I admit I'm tempted to imply lack of integrity or grasp of reality on your part, but I think it more likely you've constructed a stereotypical 'AGW believer' in your mind, and so anyone who you feel 'believes' in AGW you attribute a whole slew of beliefs to even if that individual directly contradicts those beliefs.

LetterRip

[ February 19, 2008, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Red,

quote:
One has presented a paper reviewed and accepted by his peers as authoritative- that just happens to disagree with the current AGW theories.
This is a common misconception about peer review - it is 'a first step' not the final step. The paper is almost certainly not viewed as authoritative to any scientist at this point. It just means that the reviewers didn't notice any gross errors (sometimes there aren't any, sometimes they are subtle, and sometimes the reviewer didn't give adequate thought or it wasn't sent to a reviewer well enough versed in the field) and that the paper seemed interesting enough that it should see wider debate.

In about 6 months or so (maybe sooner) hopefully we will see some critiques and M&Ms responses. (The internet allows us to see some of this go on already of course, but the beyond 'back of the napkin' critiques probably won't appear in the journals for awhile).

G2,

quote:
Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five death threats since he started questioning whether man was affecting climate change.
Unfortunately there are plenty of people out there who are nuts and send death threats - if you are a 'celebrity' on any topic of controversy it is common. Scientists supporting AGW get them also. Even tech writers (who write about far less controversial topics) do.

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The paper in question doesn't even disagree with the AGW theories. It says that socioeconomic location biases the temperature data gathered.

Unfortunately, the authors didn't run their analysis against the oceans, which would have been a very nice control group, since there's no socioeconomic activity in the oceans.

Based off of what McKitrick has said, its unclear whether they accounted enough for the feedback in their own data. They were looking for feedback biases in the temperature data, but may not have accounted for the dependency that their own data has on itself.

They also used old data, and seem to have cherry picked the data that would best support their hypothesis.

The paper has methodological flaws. What remains after the methodology has been corrected is not yet known, but considering what their adjusted data looked like, I will be surprised if whats left is much. When you find that socioeconomic factors adjust temperatures most strongly in the arctic circle, thats an obvious indicator that you need to look more closely at what you've just done.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
G2,

quote:
We're around 54° F today which LR, everard, et al assure us is too high and going any higher would result in catastrophe.
I'm getting rather annoyed at you falsely attributing claims, statements, and view to me. I've never stated or implied any of the above.
Then just simply answer my question. This manufactured outrage you trot out every time you get pushed on a topic is tiresome.

What should the global temperature be?

What should global CO2 levels be?

Since you have "significant time invested in studying the topic" and a "heavy background in mathematics (and reasonable background in statistics, and modeling), chemistry, physics, and a great deal of climate and environment specific knowledge" this should be an easy one for you so quit dodging it and impress us all with your command of the topic.

[ February 19, 2008, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: G2 ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Unfortunately there are plenty of people out there who are nuts and send death threats - if you are a 'celebrity' on any topic of controversy it is common. Scientists supporting AGW get them also.

I'm sure you have links supporting this assertion. Please list one or two as I have done. I'd be interested in seeing them.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here are critiques that I don't believe have been raised elsewhere,

1) Most antarctic stations are dropped before any analysis begins - ie

quote:
Because of the need for a trend across 23 [years?] we required each cell to have data for
at least 90% of the years, where a year is considered intact if at least 8 months are available. This left 451 usable locations. 11 cells are in Antarctica, where there is no
economy to speak of, several countries share jurisdiction over different research sites, and there is an anomalously high rate of missing values, probably due to the extreme conditions in which data are collected, so these were also removed.

2) They seem to use GDP and PPP in inappropriate places (ie in their term that determines how well a country can afford monitoring - they use GDP/area, but since the dominant cost of monitoring is labor - so in the US we might pay 12$/hour, China might pay 1$/hr which both might be 12PPP$/hr equivalent (note all numbers are illustrative purposes only). Ie both countries are paying 'reasonable wage' but the GDP cost for China is much smaller than the GDP cost to the US for the same amount of monitoring).

3) They use proxys that should auto correlate but seem to be treating them as if they were independent variables (GDP and coal consumption growth heavily auto correlate for instance).

4) Their inflation adjust GDP will end up using inconsistent definitions of inflation (ie the US has changed its definition of inflation drastically over the time period to minimize apparent inflation) note this issue is present in almost all studies that use adjusted GDP and PPP date.

5) They exclusion of the huge number of -50, and +50 latitude sites as 'outliers' + the Antarctica exclusions from above seems to me that it eliminates most of the data that shows the most significant warming.

That they don't seem to examine the impact of removing both the 'outliers' and the Antarctica data together, also their claim of 'no obvious pattern' to the outlier data seems rather odd - most of it clusters around the two 50 and -50 lattitudes it appears to me. (I would think standard practice would be to take absolute value of location relative to the equator, sum it and divide by number of points - then if they get roughly 25 latitude there would be no bias, the more above or below it, the greater the bias).

LetterRip

[ February 19, 2008, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2,

quote:
This manufactured outrage you trot out every time you get pushed on a topic is tiresome.
You aren't 'pushing on a topic' you are making false statements about me.

And it isn't 'manufactured outrage' - I never claimed outrage - but I do object to individuals bearing false witness in general, and about myself in particular.

quote:
What should the global temperature be?

What should global CO2 levels be?

There are a wide range of values that are probably reasonable. What is 'too much' is unknown (current suggestions I've see recommend stabalizing between 450-550ppm - for comparison a doubling of CO2 equivalent is 580ppm; current is 360 ppm (the doubling is a doubling based on when the scenarios were considered not a doubling of current CO2) and how strong the impact of particular temperature or CO2 levels will be is unknown. There appears to be a real risk of 'catastrophic' changes (Ie Thermo haline circulation 'shutting down' resulting in drastically reduced food production for europe and likely Asia), and of course economic losses due to submerged coastline from ocean volume expansion, and to a lesser extent glacial melting.

Also things like species and habitat loss, increased acidity of the water reducing productivity of the oceans, and unknown quantities such as variations in extreme weather events.

There are also pressing concerns which global warming may exacerbate - particularly the drawing down of water tables world wide.

Ultimately some risks are very poorly defined at current.

See this article about economic impact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_global_warming

Also economic impact (if that is how you judge things) is highly subjective in that choice of discount rate drastically impacts the conclusion even if all other assumptions can be agreed on.

Doing what we can to reduce unneeded CO2 production now (primarily through increased efficiency where possible, but also things like externality taxes where the real cost of the energy consumption is reflected in the price of the energy being consumed) can give us more time to determine the exact risks and potentially find technological solutions to substitute for CO2 intensive resource consumption (either through technological improvements in sequestration, or other innovations) if it is deemed ultimately necessary.

LetterRip

[ February 21, 2008, 02:58 AM: Message edited by: LetterRip ]

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2, warming in one place usually results in cooling in another. That's why it's climate change and not just warming. Global dimming is considered by many scientists as a far graver and pressing issue than warming. And there is, from what I gather (disclaimer: I am not a scientist, don't play one on TV and can't hold an intelligent conversation on the specifics), far less dispute that dimming is caused by human activity.
Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Solar variability is out
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm going to post this here as well (double the pleasure!) since it fits more accurately in this thread.

Temperatures are dropping hard and fast. Per UAH satellite measurements, the global ∆T from April to May 2008 was -.195°C.

For the last 12 months, May 2007 to May 2008, the 12 month ∆T is -.379°C.

Over the last 16 months there is a ∆T of -0.774°C which is equal in magnitude to the generally agreed upon “global warming signal” of the last 100 years.

For those wondering, CO2 emissions only increased during the last 16 months. The CO2 content of our atmosphere increased the entire time yet temperatures declined significantly. This is a direct contradiction of AGW theories.

Global temperatures have been in decline since 2002 with CO2 levels continuing to rise the entire time. How much and how long does temperature have to drop while CO2 levels increase before AGW supporters begin to realize there's a massive problem with their theory?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well if it continues, that's great. Let's see a slightly longer trend line.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by flydye45:
Well if it continues, that's great.

I disagree, I think it's extraordinarily bad news. We're much better off warming than we are freezing.

quote:
Originally posted by flydye45:
Let's see a slightly longer trend line.

Two things about that ...

1. How long should the trend be? There has been no warming for the last 10 years and cooling for the last 6.

2. Why does the trend matter at all? The Argos buoy system has confirmed ocean cooling and the UAH satellite system confirms atmospheric cooling. The fact that we are cooling despite continued increases in CO2 levels invalidates the AGW theory that man made greenhouse gases are responsible for the majority of the heating.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The fact that we are cooling despite continued increases in CO2 levels invalidates the AGW theory that man made greenhouse gases are responsible for the majority of the heating.
So you've been able to account for all non-anthropogenic sources for the cooling? Good. Because otherwise, it could be that CO2 is keeping things warmer than they would otherwise be.
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Temperatures are rising hard and fast. Per NCDC measurements, the global ∆T from February to March 2008 was +.32°C.

For the 12 month period (March 2007 to March 2008) the ∆T is + 0.1°C.

For the 18 month period from October 2006 to March 2008 the ∆T is + 0.13°C.

For the last 10 years from March 1999 to March 2008 the ∆T is + 0.16°C.

Cherry picking is fun!

(disclaimer for the irony-impaired: I don't believe that temperatures are rising hard and fast, and I don't believe that a monthly average anomaly is significant in any meaningful way).

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
flydye45
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Donald, I get what you are saying, but at least G2 used the latest numbers...or were you referring to the agency?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
So you've been able to account for all non-anthropogenic sources for the cooling? Good. Because otherwise, it could be that CO2 is keeping things warmer than they would otherwise be.

This particular cop-out was inevitable. Imagine how bad it would be without the CO2 warming things! However, the theory is that CO2 levels are the primary drivers to such a point that all other drivers are irrelevant. How do oceans and the atmosphere cool when the primary driver continues it's increase? That's a direct contradiction to the theory. How do you account for that?

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Temperatures are rising hard and fast. Per NCDC measurements, the global ∆T from February to March 2008 was +.32°C.

For the 12 month period (March 2007 to March 2008) the ∆T is + 0.1°C.

For the 18 month period from October 2006 to March 2008 the ∆T is + 0.13°C.

For the last 10 years from March 1999 to March 2008 the ∆T is + 0.16°C.

Cherry picking is fun!

(disclaimer for the irony-impaired: I don't believe that temperatures are rising hard and fast, and I don't believe that a monthly average anomaly is significant in any meaningful way).

All I can do is work with the most recent data series from the most reliable sources. Satellite measurements from UAH go back to 1979 and the last 10 years show a distinct downward trend that is more pronounced since 2002. The Argos Buoy system shows a decline as well. I assume you're generating data from surface stations since those are the only ones left that can demonstrate warming. It's well documented why these are doing that and how deeply flawed these stations have become - putting Stevenson screens on parking lots and next to AC exhaust fans tend to bias the data heavily upward.

Hadley and UAH both show a decreasing trend of about 0.2 degrees over the last 6 years. You can download the data from UAH and check this yourself (anyone can, just google it up and drop it in a spreadsheet). The temperatures over the last 16 months have indeed wiped out the alleged human produced warming of the last 100 years.
You may argue that it does not mean an impending ice age through the "cherry picking" defense but the issue is that AGW theory tells us that there is no way we can have any such a significant and extended cooling period as we've had over the last 6 years. There may be monthly or seasonal fluctuations but the trend should always be higher and higher temperatures according to AGW theory.

Why isn't temperature going up as AGW theory predicts?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry to rain on your parade, but NCDC uses satellite, surface marine and land based observations.
quote:
the issue is that AGW theory tells us that there is no way we can have any such a significant and extended cooling period as we've had over the last 6 years. There may be monthly or seasonal fluctuations but the trend should always be higher and higher temperatures according to AGW theory.

Not that there has been any significant cooling in the past 6 years (check out the NCDC data yourself, it's there for your perusal) but why do you think that (aside from intra-year fluctuations) global climate models would predict continuous temperature increases?

You are once again conveniently ignoring all climate drivers aside CO2. The first and most obvious driver you are excluding is the ENSO, whcih alternately drives temperatures higher then lower in multi-year cycles.

fly: the question would be, why didn't G2 author any of his cherry-picked posts since February? Why did he wait until June? Was it because May was the first month in that time frame that supported his position? Like I said earlier, the signal to noise ratio is so low when looking at global average temperatures that monthly variation comparisons are plain stupid.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Sorry to rain on your parade, but NCDC uses satellite, surface marine and land based observations.

So I was right, land based is thrown in there which is heavily biased upward. What's your theory for only land based data showing warming while all others show significant cooling?
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Not that there has been any significant cooling in the past 6 years (check out the NCDC data yourself, it's there for your perusal) but why do you think that (aside from intra-year fluctuations) global climate models would predict continuous temperature increases?

The theory is CO2 rises, so does temperatures. Over a 10 year period the CO2 levels have risen and temperatures have not - the last 6 have seen dramatic drops. Is a decade just a "intra-year fluctuation"? How about 15 years? 20? When does the downward trend become more than just a fluctuation?
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
You are once again conveniently ignoring all climate drivers aside CO2. The first and most obvious driver you are excluding is the ENSO, whcih alternately drives temperatures higher then lower in multi-year cycles.

I'm not ignoring other climate drivers. To the contrary, I'm counting on them. The AGW theory is that the level of CO2 produced by humans is responsible for the vast majority of heating (didn't everard claim at least 60% or something like that?). So much so that all others drivers drop to insignificance. My position is that CO2 levels are the insignificant factor and the other drivers (primarily the sun) are responsible. Given a decade of flat to decreasing temperatures while CO2 levels continue to increase, CO2 obviously cannot be boogey man it's been made out to be.
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
fly: the question would be, why didn't G2 author any of his cherry-picked posts since February? Why did he wait until June? Was it because May was the first month in that time frame that supported his position? Like I said earlier, the signal to noise ratio is so low when looking at global average temperatures that monthly variation comparisons are plain stupid.

First, it's not monthly variation - it's a decade.

Second, I waited until June because that's when the May 2008 data was published. I could hardly use May 2008 data before it was published. Instead of relying on projections, I prefer to rely on reality and that means waiting for the data to publish from various sources. As soon as the June data is published, I'll be on that too but I really think we should wait until the end of June to begin using that data, don't you?

Third, I'm working with the most recent data sets. You should too. You can cherry pick artificial begin and end points within the data set to demonstrate you know the definition of cherry picking but that doesn't mean I'm guilty of it. The only thing you've proven is that you know definition of cherry picking. However, if you would like to look at temperatures over the long term, I'm game. Where do today's current temperatures rank on a more reasonable time scale of millions of years? C'mon, I bet you know the answer ...

I'm looking at the trend from the last 10 years to present. You can try to prove cherry picking at the start point (with something more than defining cherry picking) but the end point being current up to 5 days ago is hardly cherry picking.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cherry picking is as cherry picking does. What you cherry picked was the time period in which you decided to post this analysis.

If instead of waiting two months, you had used the same 'current up to 5 days ago' end date in March or April - instead of waiting for May and a decrease, as you did - you would have 'proven' that the globe was warming.

quote:
First, it's not monthly variation - it's a decade.
This shows a basic misunderstanding of the data. What you are using as your end-point temperature variance is a monthly average as compared to some base point (a multi-decade average in fact.) The fact that you are comparing the monthly average to a multi-decade average doesn't make that monthly average variance anything more than a monthly average variance.
quote:
The AGW theory is that the level of CO2 produced by humans is responsible for the vast majority of heating (didn't everard claim at least 60% or something like that?).
Again, this shows a pretty basic misunderstanding. That human activity may or may not have been responsible for 60% of the excess warming in the recent past says little about the proportion of the human effect in the future and specifically human activiity does not magically limit the effects of other climate drivers.

Or do you think that if the sun went nova, climate science predicts that human activity would still be responsible for 60%? Or if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth? A super-volcano? A little more on-topic, ENSO has observable, predictable effects on global temps. Does this mean that human activity is cyclically-dependent on ENSO? Or that ENSO is dependent on the waxing and waning of human activity?

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
Cherry picking is as cherry picking does. What you cherry picked was the time period in which you decided to post this analysis.

If instead of waiting two months, you had used the same 'current up to 5 days ago' end date in March or April - instead of waiting for May and a decrease, as you did - you would have 'proven' that the globe was warming.

I think we all understand that you know what cherry picking is, now you need to actually prove it's what was done.

I did not wait for May to decrease just as I'm not waiting for June or July or whatever future date to decrease so I can use them. You're reaching terribly to make out like I have some knowledge of future data and the direction it will go so I can "cherry pick" it. I'm good but I'm not that good.

You can use the March or April data if you like - they show decreasing trends as well. The entire last 6 years shows decreasing trends. That's simply the current trend. You cannot stay stuck on previous trends to prove your point. If CO2 is the primary driver as AGW claims, it should remain the primary driver pretty consistently don't you think?

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
First, it's not monthly variation - it's a decade.
This shows a basic misunderstanding of the data. What you are using as your end-point temperature variance is a monthly average as compared to some base point (a multi-decade average in fact.) The fact that you are comparing the monthly average to a multi-decade average doesn't make that monthly average variance anything more than a monthly average variance.
This shows a basic misunderstanding of the data. I'm not comparing, I'm graphing the monthly averages and watching the trends. Pretty standard stuff in this arena. The trend should be upward, it's not.

quote:
Originally posted by DonaldD:
quote:
The AGW theory is that the level of CO2 produced by humans is responsible for the vast majority of heating (didn't everard claim at least 60% or something like that?).
Again, this shows a pretty basic misunderstanding. That human activity may or may not have been responsible for 60% of the excess warming in the recent past says little about the proportion of the human effect in the future and specifically human activiity does not magically limit the effects of other climate drivers.

Or do you think that if the sun went nova, climate science predicts that human activity would still be responsible for 60%? Or if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth? A super-volcano? A little more on-topic, ENSO has observable, predictable effects on global temps. Does this mean that human activity is cyclically-dependent on ENSO? Or that ENSO is dependent on the waxing and waning of human activity?

But that is not the AGW theory. You're trying obfuscate things and move the goal posts a bit but you still avoid the basic premise of AGW theory - specifically that it's CO2 that's the primary driver and all other drivers are irrelevant.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You're trying obfuscate things and move the goal posts a bit but you still avoid the basic premise of AGW theory - specifically that it's CO2 that's the primary driver and all other drivers are irrelevant.
Primary driver of what???

As previously stated, human-emitted CO2 accounts for only 1 to 4 percent of total global warming. That is the theory. However, it accounts for 60 percent or so of the increase in global warming. That also is the theory. (IIRC)

So the theory says that 40 percent of the increased warming is from the other 96 to 99 percent of the driving forces. That is the theory. So why does it contradict the theory that this 96 to 99 percent of the driving forces could overwhelm the 1 to 4 percent??

Now, if the current cooling is shown not to be a result of the other driving forces, then AGW and the role of CO2 must be revised. But cooling itself does not disprove AGW, according to the theory. Especially when there is a great deal of natural variance (noise) to contend with. Is the current drop in temperature much different than that which occurred around 1998?

The goal posts aren't being moved. Your understanding of AGW is being corrected.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OpsanusTau
Member
Member # 2350

 - posted      Profile for OpsanusTau   Email OpsanusTau   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I should know better than to look at this thread but I can't seem to stop myself!

There are few funnier things on Ornery, I tell you.

Here's an idea: take a statistics class before you make any more arguments based on statistics. You will look SO much less ridiculous, I promise.

Posts: 3791 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
But that is not the AGW theory. You're trying obfuscate things and move the goal posts a bit but you still avoid the basic premise of AGW theory - specifically that it's CO2 that's the primary driver and all other drivers are irrelevant
Of course, this AGW you talk about only exists in your imagination. If that's what you are arguing against then you will be hard pressed to find anyone here to disagree with.

Climate models are continuously being reworked to take into consideration all known drivers, and this includes ENSO. That you don't realize this is frankly bizarre.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just going through old threads and noticed this one. This sentence stuck out like a sore thumb
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
As soon as the June data is published, I'll be on that too but I really think we should wait until the end of June to begin using that data, don't you?

Interestingly, G2 didn't seem to get on the June data as promised. That the temperature anomaly increased in June of 2008 had nothing to do with that, I'm sure (interestingly, the monthly global temperature anomaly hasn't actually been that low since May 2008, so G2 was probably prescient in choosing that particular month as his jumping off point.)

I am a little confused that G2 hasn't recently made the observation that 'temperatures are rising hard and fast', what with this being the warmest 4-month period in the instrumental record (including the two satellite services RSS and UAH) but I am just a simple boy.

Standard disclaimer: Note that I am not pointing to the past year's trend as 'proof' of global warming, rather pointing out that 'choosing' a particular month or season as an ending point for analysis is almost useless.

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nearly 2 years has passed, what's the data now? Over the last 10 years, temperatures have consistently declined ( see ). IPCC predictions are off by several orders of magnitude - all showed warming.

Everyone knows it:
quote:
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Yep, no temperature increases for a decade and a half and it's actually gone down instead.

New future:
quote:

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

Let's look at the cycle again:
quote:
GLOBAL COOLING: 1890s-1930s

The Times, February 24, 1895
"Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again"
Fears of a "second glacial period" brought on by increases in northern glaciers and the severity of Scandinavia's climate.

New York Times, October 7, 1912
"Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age"

Los Angeles Times, June 28, 1923
"The possibility of another Ice Age already having started ... is admitted by men of first rank in the scientific world, men specially qualified to speak."

Chicago Tribune, August 9, 1923
"Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada."

Time Magazine, September 10, 1923
"The discoveries of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age."

New York Times, September 18, 1924
"MacMillan Reports Signs of New Ice Age"

GLOBAL WARMING: 1930s-1960s

New York Times, March 27, 1933
"America in Longest Warm Spell Since 1776; Temperature Line Records a 25-Year Rise"

Time Magazine, January 2, 1939
"Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right.... weather men have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer."

Time Magazine, 1951
Noted that permafrost in Russia was receding northward at 100 yards per year.

New York Times, 1952
Reported global warming studies citing the "trump card" as melting glaciers. All the great ice sheets stated to be in retreat.

U.S. News and World Report, January 18, 1954
"[W]inters are getting milder, summers drier. Glaciers are receding, deserts growing."

GLOBAL COOLING: 1970s

Time Magazine, June 24, 1974
"Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."

Christian Science Monitor, August 27, 1974
"Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect"
Reported that "glaciers have begun to advance"; "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter"; and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool".

Science News, March 1, 1975
"The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed, and we are unlikely to quickly regain the 'very extraordinary period of warmth' that preceded it."

Newsweek, April 28, 1975
"The Cooling World"
"There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now."

International Wildlife, July-August, 1975
"But the sense of the discoveries is that there is no reason why the ice age should not start in earnest in our lifetime."

New York Times, May 21, 1975
"Scientists Ponder Why World's Climate is Changing; A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable"

GLOBAL WARMING: 1990s-?

Earth in the Balance, Al Gore, 1992
"About 10 million residents of Bangladesh will lose their homes and means of sustenance because of the rising sea level due to global warming, in the next few decades."

Time Magazine, April 19, 2001
"[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible."

New York Times, December 27, 2005
"Past Hot Times Hold Few Reasons to Relax About New Warming"

The Daily Telegraph, February 2, 2006
"Billions will die, says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not usually a gloomy type. Human civilization will be reduced to a 'broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords,' and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot where a few breeding couples will survive."

About a 30 year cycle, give or take. So it's time for the end of the world to once again be cooling just like it was in the 1970's ... hopefully without the disco music.

Burt Rutan lays it out:
quote:
Specifically, the theory of CAGW is not supported by any of the climate data and none of the predictions of IPCC since their first report in 1991 have been supported by measured data. The scare is merely a computer modeled theory that has been flawed from the beginning, and in spite of its failure to predict, many of the climate scientists cling to it.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Fortunately, there is a simply rebutal to G2's argument.

Consider this chart of the global land-ocean temperatures since 1880, and answer three simple questions.

1. Has average temperatures increased since 1880?

2. Has there ever been a decade and a half between 1880 and 2011 when temperatures have decreased, perhaps even more than the current decade?

3. Considering the answers to 1 and 2, does the current mild downward trend of temperatures conclusively prove that global warming has stopped?

Hopefully, this is the beginning of a long term trend, although I would like to see a much deeper decrease. But it is still too early to tell.

BTW, which computer model was Rutan referring to? [Wink]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You get an A for research and for putting together the headline timeline.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
G2 did not put together the headline timeline.

According to G2, it was James P. Hogan, which he quoted in another thread back in March 2007.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
edgmatt
Member
Member # 6449

 - posted      Profile for edgmatt   Email edgmatt       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah. Too bad, it's a good illustration of media frenzy.
Posts: 1439 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Fortunately, there is a simply rebutal to G2's argument.

Consider this chart of the global land-ocean temperatures since 1880, and answer three simple questions.

Your chart is looking at a different data set, so to some degree this isn't a completely valid comparison.

Here is the graph using the same data set: Link

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
1. Has average temperatures increased since 1880?

Yes, by about 0.8 Celsius between 1880-2011. (roughly 0.6 °C per century)

quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
2. Has there ever been a decade and a half between 1880 and 2011 when temperatures have decreased, perhaps even more than the current decade?

Yes, 1940-1958 is a pretty big decline and if you were to trace a plot from 1880 to 1940 you would get a much steeper trend line than if you were to trace a plot from 1880 to 1958.


quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
3. Considering the answers to 1 and 2, does the current mild downward trend of temperatures conclusively prove that global warming has stopped?

No, but it does cast a lot of doubt on the expected long term trend for global warming. And thus, it certainly affects the public debate. It looks as if the truth is somewhere in the middle of a)there is no global warming & b)global warming will be a global catastrophe unless we do something immediately.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G2:
Nearly 2 years has passed, what's the data now? Over the last 10 years, temperatures have consistently declined ( see ). IPCC predictions are off by several orders of magnitude - all showed warming.

Everyone knows it:
quote:
Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
Yep, no temperature increases for a decade and a half and it's actually gone down instead.

New future:
quote:

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.


See this for a rebuttal.

Relevant Section:

quote:
Originally posted by Phil Plait:
By "Cycle 25" he’s referring to the solar activity cycle — which I’ll get to in a moment. But first, the most egregiously awful thing about the Mail article is the angle it takes on new results released by The Met Office, the National Weather Service for the UK. The subheadline for the Mail article is "Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years", which is a bit odd given that the very first two paragraphs of the Met’s press release say:

2012 is expected to be around 0.48 °C warmer than the long-term (1961-1990) global average of 14.0 °C, with a predicted likely range of between 0.34 °C and 0.62 °C, according to the Met Office annual global temperature forecast.

The middle of this range would place 2012 within the top 10 warmest years in a series which goes back to 1850.

...

If you can square that with "new figures… show no warming" then congrats! You can write for the Mail.

The article is so fallacious that the Met offices decided to publish another release stating clearly that the Mail article "includes numerous errors", is "misleading", and that the author chose "… to not fully include the answers we gave him".

Also, what the Daily Mail says came from the University of East Anglia, actually came out of the University of Reading. Oops.

[ January 30, 2012, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: NobleHunter ]

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Heck, G2's own post is looking at two different data subsets... and once again cherry picking them. It can be claimed that the temperatures over the past decade have plateaued, but when in one post G2 characterizes temperatures as consistently declining over a 10 year period, then once again quotes from someone using 1998 as a starting point, well, you have to applaud how consistent he is in his misrepresentations.

Take the word 'consistent' - even choosing the relatively warm year of 2002 as a starting point, there were 3 years since then that exceeded the average temperature anomaly for that year.

If choosing 2001 instead of 2002 as the starting point, then 8 of the past 10 years were warmer; if choosing either 1999 or 2000, then every year since then has been warmer. It's only by selecting a good starting point that his claim can be made even partially accurate.

I won't even get into the uselessness of quoting someone who uses 1998 as a starting point while analyzing a decades-long trend. But it is interesting that G2 was silent at the end of 2010, a year that basically tied for the warmest ever during the instrumental record, but only a year later is claiming that temperatures are dropping "consistently". [Smile]

Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JWatts
Member
Member # 6523

 - posted      Profile for JWatts   Email JWatts   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Different data sets show different things. But if you are referring to the Hadcrut data then 1998 was the hottest year on record.
Posts: 4700 | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1