Global warming

[rediswrong]

For the 1% of the population who still think global warming is a left wing conspiracy here is a paper published this week in Science to consider:

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B6kqlB85LcrPZTNlY2NjNDAtYWE0MC00NmJmL Tk3NjMtZDY5ZTBkNWEyZGJk&hl=en

Take a gander at Figure 3 in particular, the longest record ever published.

...and do your research before you post quotes from some "scientist" who claims there is no global warming. Because in every single case I've ever seen, the guy had either never published in the area or was paid by the oil company or both.

[pattyk]

we believe that there is climate change happening.

just not that man can do anything about it. C02 is not a pollutant.

China could sure use some cleanup though. that would be nice.

[Matthewobamahater]

Sure the earth has warmed over the last 150 years, but that was because of the highest solar output in 2,000 years. Now that we are driving into another period of cooling we will wish we had our warming global. I wish it would warm, because we would have more food and less need to keep warm.

We are likely heading towards anothe ice age.

[Jabbamagnus]

I'm going to let the resident expert take this one.

Waits for Lee and grabs the popcorn. :D

[rediswrong]

What does this or CO2 have to do pollutants? There are plenty of pollutants our engines spew into the air but that is another whole issue from global warming.

[RETXED]

:rolleyes:wow. The earth warms and it cools. Pretty alarming.... Stop the presses. Buy hybrids!

Even President Obama's closest advisor, Van Jones (Green Jobs Czar), admitted that the "Eco Policy" is only a tool to CHANGE SOCIETY...

The Earth has not warmed since 1998 which was NOT the warmest year. The 1930's wins that. The Earth is actually in a cooling trend right now.

Question: What is the "Normal" temperature for the Earth supposed to be?

[rediswrong]

Sure the earth has warmed over the last 150 years, but that was because of the highest solar output in 2,000 years. Now that we are driving into another period of cooling we will wish we had our warming global. I wish it would warm, because we would have more food and less need to keep warm.

We are likely heading towards anothe ice age.

Did you look at the paper?

[rediswrong]

:rolleyes:wow. The earth warms and it cools. Pretty alarming.... Stop the presses. Buy hybrids!

Even President Obama's closest advisor, Van Jones (Green Jobs Czar), admitted that the "Eco Policy" is only a tool to CHANGE SOCIETY...

The Earth has not warmed since 1998 which was NOT the warmest year. The 1930's wins that. The Earth is actually in a cooling trend right now.

Question: What is the "Normal" temperature for the Earth supposed to be?

There are multple factors that affect the earth's temperature. That is not the point.
This study is about the remarkable artic warming which IS the warmest on record and artic warming is where the catatrophic consequences arise.

[Matthewobamahater]

45 million years ago there were no ice sheets over Antarctic. The climate regime that we are in now has only been around for 2 million years out of the 25 million years of overall ice within the Antarctic. We are within a long term ice age, liberal. It would not surpize me if we did warm up towards the earth's avg of 2-3c warmer then today at all. Hell 80 percent of its history has been much warmer then it is now.

What so shocking about the changes we see now. It's explained by the fact that the sun has been putting out the most output it has in over 2,000 years. That should explain why we are as warm as we have been since the mid evil warm period and the warm period before that. These climate shifts occur.

Co2 is a joke as a green house gas, yes it warms up to around 500 ppm, but its effects become very little after that untill around 5,000 to 6,000 ppm. Good luck in pumping enough of it into the Atmopshere and still when it was 4,000 ppm 400 million years ago we where only 3-4c warmer then today on avg. Good luck with that in 91 years, just bad science and pure idiocy.

[Tiger Deal]

Question: What is the "Normal" temperature for the Earth supposed to be?[/quote]

If they cant answer that question then I suggest they "chill out". Not advocate destroying our economy further by limiting our emissions of plant food.

[rediswrong]

45 million years ago there were no ice sheets over Antarctic. The climate regime that we are in now has only been around for 2 million years out of the 25 million years of overall ice within the Antarctic. We are within a long term ice age, liberal. It would not surpize me if we did warm up towards the earth's avg of 2-3c warmer then today at all. Hell 80 percent of its history has been much warmer then it is now.

What so shocking about the changes we see now. It's explained by the fact that the sun has been putting out the most output it has in over 2,000 years. That should explain why we are as warm as we have been since the mid evil warm period and the warm period before that. These climate shifts occur.

Co2 is a joke as a green house gas, yes it warms up to around 500 ppm, but its effects become very little after that untill around 5,000 to 6,000 ppm. Good luck in pumping enough of it into the Atmopshere and still when it was 4,000 ppm 400 million years ago we where only 3-4c warmer then today on avg. Good luck with that in 91 years, just bad science and pure idiocy.

Did you forget to post the links supporting your claims?

[RETXED]

There are multple factors invlved in the earth's temperature. That is not the point.
This study is about the remarkable artic warming which IS the warmest on record and artic warming is where the catatrophic consequences arise.


So what you are saying is.......... An ISOLATED area on the earth is going through a warming period? Well, why would this be considered "Global Warming"? LMAO......

And the "Warmest on Record" doesn't mean squat when records have only been kept for a blip of the earths actual history....

Wanna bet there is another area of the earth that is experiencing RECORD LOW TEMPERATURES?

[Lee Kington]

For the 1% of the population who still think global warming is a left wing conspiracy here is a paper published this week in Science to consider:

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B6kqlB85LcrPZTNlY2NjNDAtYWE0MC00NmJmL Tk3NjMtZDY5ZTBkNWEyZGJk&hl=en

Take a gander at Figure 3 in particular, the longest record ever published.

...and do your research before you post quotes from some "scientist" who claims there is no global warming. Because in every single case I've ever seen, the guy had either never published in the area or was paid by the oil company or both.

That study has been part of discussion recently in this thread...
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?p=60373551

There are several problems with that study some of which I have already outlined in the other thread.

[Libstomper]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:oozeJe0glbMFOM:http://www.blewbury.co.uk/energy/images/graph_cartoon.gif

According to the above scientific graph, temperatures have been decreasing for a while.

[Tiger Deal]

If only Gore had gotten on the right side of this. He could have insisted we drive larger automobiles in an effort to warm our planet. What a doofus.

[RETXED]

"Many Americans are feeling chilly throughout the bleak summer, which is experiencing record low temperatures in the middle of the year."

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/276878

[RETXED]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:oozeJe0glbMFOM:http://www.blewbury.co.uk/energy/images/graph_cartoon.gif

According to the above scientific graph, temperatures have been decreasing for a while.


Well that explains it all RIGHT THERE!!!!! :lol:

(I am using that one)

[rediswrong]

So what you are saying is.......... An ISOLATED area on the earth is going through a warming period? Well, why would this be considered "Global Warming"? LMAO......

And the "Warmest on Record" doesn't mean squat when records have only been kept for a blip of the earths actual history....

Wanna bet there is another area of the earth that is experiencing RECORD LOW TEMPERATURES?

The study dealt with artic warming, global warming and the evidence is the subject of thousands of other volumes.
It was my mistake to suggest in the title I wanted to hear your opinion on global warming.

[Libstomper]

Well that explains it all RIGHT THERE!!!!! :lol:

(I am using that one)

Its validity is equal to that of anything I've seen produced in support of the AGW theory.

[RETXED]

Record-Low Temperatures Sweep Across Russia

by Gregory Feifer



January 20, 2006
[/URL]
[URL="javascript: void();"] (javascript:NPR.Player.openPlayer(5165524, 5165525, null, NPR.Player.Action.PLAY_NOW, NPR.Player.Type.STORY, ''))
January 20, 2006




Russia is experiencing Arctic temperatures, which have closed schools and killed at least seven people in Moscow alone. Authorities are warning factories they may experience power cuts as the 50-year record-low temperatures are expected to continue





http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5165524

[Matthewobamahater]

I will be honest, I would like to see it warm 3c in 91 years. If it does that I pray I can live to see it. But I seriously doubt it. I believe we are heading for a ice age.

[rediswrong]

"Many Americans are feeling chilly throughout the bleak summer, which is experiencing record low temperatures in the middle of the year."

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/276878

You have got to me kidding me.

[RETXED]

Falls sets record low temperatures



set low temperature records Sunday and Monday mornings, landing 4 to 5 degrees below the records, and well below the average 50-degree lows.




http://www.ifallsdailyjournal.com/news/weather/falls-sets-record-low-temperatures-107

[Jim50]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:oozeJe0glbMFOM:http://www.blewbury.co.uk/energy/images/graph_cartoon.gif

According to the above scientific graph, temperatures have been decreasing for a while.

I saw a nice graph that compared the rise in temps and the decline in pirates. Therefore we can conclude that fewer pirates means a hotter Earth. WE NEED MORE PIRATES!

[Libstomper]

I saw a nice graph that compared the rise in temps and the decline in pirates. Therefore we can conclude that fewer pirates means a hotter Earth. WE NEED MORE PIRATES!

Can't argue with that!

[rediswrong]

Record-Low Temperatures Sweep Across Russia

by Gregory Feifer



January 20, 2006
[/URL]
[URL="javascript: void();"] (javascript:NPR.Player.openPlayer(5165524, 5165525, null, NPR.Player.Action.PLAY_NOW, NPR.Player.Type.STORY, ''))
January 20, 2006




Russia is experiencing Arctic temperatures, which have closed schools and killed at least seven people in Moscow alone. Authorities are warning factories they may experience power cuts as the 50-year record-low temperatures are expected to continue





http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5165524



So I'm learning the right's case relies on articles about some cold days by journalists

[Matthewobamahater]

We warmed maybe .6c over 100 years, but you people think we are going to warm with out the fact that we where in a little ice age 2-3c. Back it. In that in 91 years. What a joke.

[Lee Kington]

So I'm learning the right's case relies on articles about some cold days by journalists

Wrong..... thousands of scientists and studies.

The one you cite deals with proxies (always have a built in uncertainty) and relatively few data points... worse yet. How about some Icecore Data?

[RETXED]

So I'm learning the right's case relies on articles about some cold days by journalists



LOL.... So you dispute THE FACT that they are seeing RECORD LOW temperatures in these areas? lol

I didn't realize that you needed to be a Scientist to compare temperature differences.

You are babbling about ONE area that is experiencing a warming trend. I simply stated that in order for this to happen, there must be a another area of the world that is experiencing RECORD COLD and I PROVED THAT. It doesn't take a Climate scientist to figure out that since our Global Temps are lower, then one area that warms must result in other areas that are cooling... This is the way it has been throughout history even before humans walked the earth.

[Libstomper]

Lee's graph looks like my graph.

[rediswrong]

Wrong..... thousands of scientists and studies.

The one you cite deals with proxies (always have a built in uncertainty) and relatively few data points... worse yet. How about some Icecore Data?

First off the one I cite is the point of the thread, since it was published this week and is the most extensive of the artic to date.
I believe the ice data is the gray line in Figure 3.
The proxys take into account all the available records and are therefore more reliable than one graph.

[RETXED]

Boy.... Are we seeing a record? A 2-POST Knock out by Lee Kington?

:lol:

[rediswrong]

LOL.... So you dispute THE FACT that they are seeing RECORD LOW temperatures in these areas? lol

I didn't realize that you needed to be a Scientist to compare temperature differences.

You are babbling about ONE area that is experiencing a warming trend. I simply stated that in order for this to happen, there must be a another area of the world that is experiencing RECORD COLD and I PROVED THAT. It doesn't take a Climate scientist to figure out that since our Global Temps are lower, then one area that warms must result in other areas that are cooling... This is the way it has been throughout history even before humans walked the earth.

IT IS ONE YEAR! Its a very simple concept called variance.
That is why taking all records over a 2000 year period (i.e. the paper) is in fact more reliable than what someone observed in Russia one winter.

[Clamp]

CO2 is heavier then O2.

Carbon Dioxide sinks to the ground. Blow up a balloon. Your breathe is mainly carbon dioxide. Now drop the balloon. It sinks to the ground even though its hotter then the surrounding air.

There is no proof of global warming, only proof of global warming and cooling cycles.

[Matthewobamahater]

The global warmers believe that the sun has no effect on the climate of the earth. NONE. The truth is it has 99% of the effect on climate in reallity.


Please tell me how it possibly could warm up 2c in 91 years. Thank you.

[RETXED]

IT IS ONE YEAR! Its a very simple concept called variance.
That is why taking all records over a 2000 year period (i.e. the paper) is in fact more reliable than what someone observed in Russia one winter.


My Lord....

ONE year in a 2000 year period is like taking a 2000 year average vs. the Earths actual age... Why only go back 2K years? Or, why go back 2K years instead of 1K or 500? Why is 2K the number?

WHAT is NORMAL or IDEAL?

Answer: YOU HAVE NO ****ING ANSWER BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW!

[rediswrong]

My Lord....

ONE year in a 2000 year period is like taking a 2000 year average vs. the Earths actual age... Why only go back 2K years? Or, why go back 2K years instead of 1K or 500? Why is 2K the number?

WHAT is NORMAL or IDEAL?

Answer: YOU HAVE NO ****ING ANSWER BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW!

What I do know is that 2000 years is 2000x more accurate than 1 year and this study is 1,000,000x more informative than some newspaper clippings.

We don't know everything, but you consider the most evidence available.

Look, of course I have no idea what the truth is. But I'm sick of the right relying on Glenn beck and newspaper articles as support for their 100% certainty that there is no global warming.

[Matthewobamahater]

What I do know is that 2000 years is 2000x more accurate than 1 year and this study is 1,000,000x more informative than some newspaper clippings.

We don't know everything, but you consider the most evidence available.

Look, of course I have no idea what the truth is. But I'm sick of the right relying on Glenn beck and newspaper articles as support for their 100% certainty that there is no global warming.


So your blind to the fact that the Sun solar cycles fit perfectly with the cycles of warming and cooling over the last 5,000 years+ solar data we have? Sure it is as warm as it has been since the mid evil warm period because of the sun having its highest output since then during the 20th century. So you won't even admit that the sun could have a huge effect on our climate?

I would trust the sun causing the solar cycles far before I would trust a weak green gas that don't even have much effect on the climate system between 400-4,000 ppm in the atmopshere. Unless the sun went nuts there is not a shot in all hell we warm 2c in the next 91 years. Admit it that any warming won't be the end of everything that is for sure.,

[RETXED]

What I do know is that 2000 years is 2000x more accurate than 1 year and this study is 1,000,000x more informative than some newspaper clippings.

We don't know everything, but you consider the most evidence available.

Look, of course I have no idea what the truth is. But I'm sick of the right relying on Glenn beck and newspaper articles as support for their 100% certainty that there is no global warming.


And the whole point of it all is..... WHY IS THIS A BAD THING?

We have ice ages, warming trends, drouts etc.. The Inuits adapted to the Arctic and the Africans adapted to extreme heat... Animals, Fish, Humans all adapt to our surroundings. A warming trend that would compare with the mid-evil times (Which we aren't even close too) would see our planet with more vegetation and crops would be abundant... The earth can only get so warm. The only way it could heat up to a level for zero life is if we suddenly moved closer to the sun...

[rediswrong]

So your blind to the fact that the Sun solar cycles fit perfectly with the cycles of warming and cooling over the last 5,000 years+ solar data we have? Sure it is as warm as it has been since the mid evil warm period because of the sun having its highest output since then during the 20th century. So you won't even admit that the sun could have a huge effect on our climate?

I would trust the sun causing the solar cycles far before I would trust a weak green gas that don't even have much effect on the climate system between 400-4,000 ppm in the atmopshere. Unless the sun went nuts there is not a shot in all hell we warm 2c in the next 91 years. Admit it that any warming won't be the end of everything that is for sure.,

First of, post the data
Second, this is exactly why you need to look at these types of artic proxys. Like I said in one of my first posts, there are hundreds of factors that affect climate. You need to wade through all that to look for trends over and above these cyclical patterns.
So, yes I see your point, but it only reinforces the huge contributions studies like the one I posted make.

[RETXED]

So how is this going to kill the earth, again?

[rediswrong]

I actually have to get work done today. Bottom line is that the radio and TV commentators and guys who get paid by the oil and gas industry have done the public a huge disservice. They do not deserve to have an opinion that is publically broadcast.

You all just need to read the studies published in peer reviewed journals.
Since access is often limited, I'll try and post them when I can.

I am a scientist but not a climatologist, so I rely on these published studies and could be completely wrong. But again, while I'm not an expert, the data that I have seen shows a remarkable upswing in temperature over and above the cyclical fluctuations. Of course I'm open to published data to the contrary.

[Lee Kington]

I actually have to get work done today. Bottom line is that the radio and TV commentators and guys who get paid by the oil and gas industry have done the public a huge disservice. They do not deserve to have an opinion that is publically broadcast.
What a bogus load of regurgitated propaganda.

[E7ALR]

I actually have to get work done today. Bottom line is that the radio and TV commentators and guys who get paid by the oil and gas industry have done the public a huge disservice. They do not deserve to have an opinion that is publically broadcast.

You all just need to read the studies published in peer reviewed journals.
Since access is often limited, I'll try and post them when I can.

I am a scientist but not a climatologist, so I rely on these published studies and could be completely wrong. But again, while I'm not an expert, the data that I have seen shows a remarkable upswing in temperature over and above the cyclical fluctuations. Of course I'm open to published data to the contrary.I'm not even a scientist, but when it was reported that the ice caps on Mars (same solar system, less atmosphere to capture and retain heat, no ocean heat sump and farther from the star) were also shrinking and that storms in the atmosphere of Jupiter (same solar system, gas giant, significantly farther from the star) were increasing, it wasn't to hard to figure out that the only shared component was the sun itself. No man made green house gas sources on either planet, yet both experiencing signs of atmospheric heating along with the Earth.

No one is disputing that the Earth's temperature has and is constantly changing. But science tainted by politics and money seeking a problem to justify its socieo-political default solution (socialist redistribution) is not worthy of even being called science.

[RETXED]

I am a scientist but not a climatologist, so I rely on these published studies and could be completely wrong. But again, while I'm not an expert, the data that I have seen shows a remarkable upswing in temperature over and above the cyclical fluctuations. Of course I'm open to published data to the contrary.


So what happened during the mid-evil period as to why it was a much warmer period than now? And again, if the earth warms some more, why is this bad? How is this going to "Destroy" the earth?

I'll ask again.....

WHAT is the ideal temperature of the earth supposed to be?

[RETXED]

I actually have to get work done today. Bottom line is that the radio and TV commentators and guys who get paid by the oil and gas industry have done the public a huge disservice. They do not deserve to have an opinion that is publically broadcast.


No, the ones who are doing a disservice to the public are people like YOU and Algore who a trying to scare the hell out of people trying to make them believe that any
"Climate" variance from what they are living in right now is going to kill them. When the reality is the Climate is ALWAYS changing and has NEVER been constant. There are ice ages and warming periods. Always will be. I for one fear an ice age more than a warming period.

[drylok]

It's pretty arogant to think we can control the climate. Shut your damn mouths and live your lives the way you see fit and let others do the same.

[rediswrong]

So what happened during the mid-evil period as to why it was a much warmer period than now? And again, if the earth warms some more, why is this bad? How is this going to "Destroy" the earth?

I'll ask again.....

WHAT is the ideal temperature of the earth supposed to be?

There is no ideal absolute temperature of course, but there is an ideal tempurature to sustain life as we now know it.
Check out the chaos the Pentagon is planning for as a result of global warming:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=2&hp

Whether it is man made or not, according to the Pentagon we will be dealing with its consequences sorry to say.

[rediswrong]

No, the ones who are doing a disservice to the public are people like YOU and Algore who a trying to scare the hell out of people trying to make them believe that any
"Climate" variance from what they are living in right now is going to kill them. When the reality is the Climate is ALWAYS changing and has NEVER been constant. There are ice ages and warming periods. Always will be. I for one fear an ice age more than a warming period.

I'm not trying to scare anyone. All I am asking is that you read the science and not the newspaper.

[SabercatPuck]

I actually have to get work done today. Bottom line is that the radio and TV commentators and guys who get paid by the oil and gas industry have done the public a huge disservice. They do not deserve to have an opinion that is publically broadcast.

You all just need to read the studies published in peer reviewed journals.
Since access is often limited, I'll try and post them when I can.

I am a scientist but not a climatologist, so I rely on these published studies and could be completely wrong. But again, while I'm not an expert, the data that I have seen shows a remarkable upswing in temperature over and above the cyclical fluctuations. Of course I'm open to published data to the contrary.
Well the scientists that make the papers and review the articles are in the employ of the governments that are pushing this global warming stuff, so they have just as much reason to find ways to make it seem plausable.

[Matthewobamahater]

There is no ideal absolute temperature of course, but there is an ideal tempurature to sustain life as we now know it.
Check out the chaos the Pentagon is planning for as a result of global warming:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=2&hp

Whether it is man made or not, according to the Pentagon we will be dealing with its consequences sorry to say.


If earth is doomed then we better put more money into the extrasolar planet finding missions. We might need to find a new home if the earth is going to become so unlivable. If not unliveable why not work to build are cities and nation in a way to live with it. We can't control it.

[SabercatPuck]

Now as for evidence, lets see how about the temp map of the US this last july, looks like there were more places sitting at or near the lowest on record than at the top.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/10/noaa-july-temperature-below-average-for-the-u-s/

[Lee Kington]

There is no ideal absolute temperature of course, but there is an ideal tempurature to sustain life as we now know it.
Check out the chaos the Pentagon is planning for as a result of global warming:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/science/earth/09climate.html?_r=2&hp

Whether it is man made or not, according to the Pentagon we will be dealing with its consequences sorry to say.

So now the Joint Chiefs of Staff all have advanced degrees in climatology. Oh wait, no, they rely on wackos like Hansen, Holdren, Mann, etc.

[SabercatPuck]

Here is this years temperature at the north pole area, shown against the ERA40 average. Looks like except for some months early in the year where the temps were warmer than normal (but still well below freezing) that overall through the summer melt months it has stayed below average.

http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php

[Satchmopants]

For the 1% of the population who still think global warming is a left wing conspiracy here is a paper published this week in Science to consider:

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B6kqlB85LcrPZTNlY2NjNDAtYWE0MC00NmJmL Tk3NjMtZDY5ZTBkNWEyZGJk&hl=en

Take a gander at Figure 3 in particular, the longest record ever published.

...and do your research before you post quotes from some "scientist" who claims there is no global warming. Because in every single case I've ever seen, the guy had either never published in the area or was paid by the oil company or both.

You know I have noticed that it has been getting much warmer since about mid June.

Oh wait that is called Summer. Nevermind.

[SabercatPuck]

And look at this, a direct rebuttal to the piece in the OP. Looks like there is one big problem in the whole pier review situation, the raw data and methodologies are not disclosed and have not been disclosed after repeated freedom of information act requests.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/04/dmi-arctic-temperature-data-animation-doesnt-support-claims-of-recent-arctic-warming/

[Billy_Bob]

I actually have to get work done today. Bottom line is that the radio and TV commentators and guys who get paid by the oil and gas industry have done the public a huge disservice. They do not deserve to have an opinion that is publically broadcast.




SO because you do not agree with our position you think we should be silenced..... WOW that says a lot....Do you work in Obama's administration?

[Alan J]

And look at this, a direct rebuttal to the piece in the OP. Looks like there is one big problem in the whole pier review situation, the raw data and methodologies are not disclosed and have not been disclosed after repeated freedom of information act requests.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/04/dmi-arctic-temperature-data-animation-doesnt-support-claims-of-recent-arctic-warming/

And look at this, a direct rebuttal to A. Watts' absurd rebuttal to the piece in the OP:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/arctic-non-analysis/

[Matthewobamahater]

And look at this, a direct rebuttal to A. Watts' absurd rebuttal to the piece in the OP:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/arctic-non-analysis/


Lets says we do the impossible and warm up 2-3c over the next 91 years. Then we will have more food and lower electric bills. All good. I don't believe we will warm, but do the opposite based on solar cycles.

Bring on the warmer earth. Earth around 5c warmer then today would be perfect.

[Lee Kington]

And look at this, a direct rebuttal to A. Watts' absurd rebuttal to the piece in the OP:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/arctic-non-analysis/

Since Anthony is not here to respond to the Tamino rant I will act in his steed and import part (one of) his response to said rant.

REPLY: “Tamino” can say anything he wants, that doesn’t make it relevant. The big hot button issue has been “the arctic is melting” I’m only pointing out that if there is no significant excursions beyond the top of the DMI/ERA40 average climate bell curve, then there is no extension of the period when temperatures are warm enough to melt sea ice in place.

A 30 year upwards trend of winter temperature that remains subzero does nothing to enhance ice melt. However wind pattern changes that force the icepack southward along the east coast of Greenland where the ice melts in warmer waters does seem have a big effect. NASA points out significant wind pattern changes, but that is ignored by Tamino and everyone else in his peer group. Why?

“The Arctic is warming” is the news catchphrase desired from the Kaufman paper here, just like it was in Antractica and the Steig et al trainwreck. But if the temperature during the summer Arctic melt season does not increase over summer climate normals, then that has no significant effect on enhancing ice melt. Neither does a warming trend that occurs in deep winter when the temperature averages -20C. If the trend in the last 40 years was to make that winter average go from -23C to -20C (just examples not from data/calcs) then the sea ice remains frozen. It still doesn’t affect the melt until the 2M air temperature trend or other Arctic environmental changes causes a change in the amount of time spent above the freezing point of seawater and that does not appear to be happening.

“Tamino” himself points out that “…most of the temperature change north of latitude 80 deg. has occurred, not in the summer, but in winter/spring/fall.” And during much of that time the air temperature remains below 273K.

But you’ve given me a great idea.

- Anthony

P.S. Caspar Amman is part of this Kaufman paper, and for a look at the sort of integrity in data analysis he has, one should read the excellent Caspar and the Jesus Paper here:

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html

Look for this time stamp on comments (17:33:55) :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/04/dmi-arctic-temperature-data-animation-doesnt-support-claims-of-recent-arctic-warming/#comment-182717

[Billy_Bob]

I'm not trying to scare anyone. All I am asking is that you read the science and not the newspaper.

When it is true science that would be a positive thing. However, when your science is one driven by supporting a policy or bogus agenda all bets are off... Most of us so called dissenters see the failings of the sudo-science and choose not to beleive the lie...

[Alan J]

Since Anthony is not here to respond to the Tamino rant I will act in his steed and import part (one of) his response to said rant.



Look for this time stamp on comments (17:33:55) :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/04/dmi-arctic-temperature-data-animation-doesnt-support-claims-of-recent-arctic-warming/#comment-182717

This is why I can't take anything Watts says seriously. (Well, aside from him being wrong about everything, that is.) Tamino completely demolished Watts' argument. It wasn't difficult to do. What does Watts do in return? Does he admit to being wrong? Does he attempt to mount a counter argument? No! He simply ignores Tamino offhand and goes into a spiel about arctic sea ice. Watts' original point was that the arctic isn't warming, not that the arctic sea ice isn't melting.

[Alan J]

Lets says we do the impossible and warm up 2-3c over the next 91 years. Then we will have more food and lower electric bills. All good. I don't believe we will warm, but do the opposite based on solar cycles.

Bring on the warmer earth. Earth around 5c warmer then today would be perfect.

Let's say that we warm up 2-3 ºC and we don't have more food and lower electric bills. Let's say we have less food and higher electric bills. What then?

Also, it's lovely that you think we're going to cool based on "solar cycles." That means diddly though.

[spinach]

.......


somewhere, right now, a tree needs a hug.

[nunyadb]

Let's say that we warm up 2-3 ºC and we don't have more food and lower electric bills. Let's say we have less food and higher electric bills. What then?

Also, it's lovely that you think we're going to cool based on "solar cycles." That means diddly though.

Solar cycle have always been and always will be the true driving force of
the Earth's climate. Anyone that doesn't realize this needs to go someplace
where the sun can't warm that planet and check out conditions there.
Then report back.

[Alan J]

Solar cycle have always been and always will be the true driving force of
the Earth's climate. Anyone that doesn't realize this needs to go someplace
where the sun can't warm that planet and check out conditions there.
Then report back.

That's probably the most simplistic view of the Earth's climate I've heard of. And it seems to be believed by almost every single AGW denier out there.

[nunyadb]

That's probably the most simplistic view of the Earth's climate I've heard of. And it seems to be believed by almost every single AGW denier out there.

Tell you what slick, turn off the "glowing thing" in the sky and watch how fast
this planet turns into an ice ball.
It's happened before when enough volcanic activity happened to blot the sun's
radiance from the sky.
Nat'l Geo even did a show about it.
"Snowball Earth"

So you think the sun doesn't effect the temp on the surface of this planet all you
want, but until I see some of you AGW types admit that it's colder in the shade in
winter than it is in the sunlight, I'm not believing anything else you have to say.
Forrest Gump knew that much. Which tells me all I need to know about your
so called "scientific consensus".

[Matthewobamahater]

Let's say that we warm up 2-3 ºC and we don't have more food and lower electric bills. Let's say we have less food and higher electric bills. What then?

Also, it's lovely that you think we're going to cool based on "solar cycles." That means diddly though.


2-3c of warming would open up a large part of Russia, Canada to farming and growing food. I believe that equals more land overall then we now can farm on being the landfall mass grows larger in area as you go north. Nuclear would lower my power bills and yours. Support it.

Solar cycles line up to the cold and warm periods. In the 20th century we had the highest level of solar output since the mid evil warm period. Of course that is going away...I was reading a study that points to that these solar cycles in fact do have a much larger effect on our climate then your nasa, IPCC thought. It makes perfect sense.

We are also going towards many enhancement of solar cycles ranging from the 11,22, ect all the way leading towards another ice age that could happen now. A major one. How would you feel if we came out of this innerglacial period within the next 50-100 years??? Is it really worth destroying our economy, if we destroyed our economy then billions would die that would not of died if our economy was at its peak strength. We can't afford it. I've done enough study on this to know that a ice age is just about due when you look at the cycles of the last 2,000 year ice age we are in. Lets say another cycle is about ready to load? OF course your say bs and say that all life on earth is going to burn by 2-3c of temperature warming in the next 100 years. The little ice age was world wide.

In one more thing nothing is more important to our climate then the sun. The sun rules this whole solar system with a IRON fist like a king. It controls our climate and the output of it can change changing our climate in a short time.

[Alan J]

Tell you what slick, turn off the "glowing thing" in the sky and watch how fast
this planet turns into an ice ball.
It's happened before when enough volcanic activity happened to blot the sun's
radiance from the sky.
Nat'l Geo even did a show about it.
"Snowball Earth"

So you think the sun doesn't effect the temp on the surface of this planet all you
want, but until I see some of you AGW types admit that it's colder in the shade in
winter than it is in the sunlight, I'm not believing anything else you have to say.
Forrest Gump knew that much. Which tells me all I need to know about your
so called "scientific consensus".

You don't really think I or anyone else thinks that the sun doesn't affect the planet, do you?


Do you?

[Billy_Bob]

That's probably the most simplistic view of the Earth's climate I've heard of. And it seems to be believed by almost every single AGW denier out there.

Sometimes the simplest way is the best way.....

AJ, As Forrest Gump would say...you cant see the forest through the trees..... Your so busy looking for the needle in the hay stack that you cant see the hay stack burning....

[nunyadb]

You don't really think I or anyone else thinks that the sun doesn't affect the planet, do you?


Do you?

I've read quite a few of you nutball AGW supporters scientific papers.
I'm not a rube, nor am I uneducated. I can read and comprehend what I'm reading.
Scientific gobbleydeegook included for the most part.

In not one of those papers has any account of the increase UV radiation from
high sunspot activity been taken into account.
In all cases , solar activity has been totally dismissed out of hand.

So yeah, I'm thinking that they are nutballs that aren't nearly as smart
as Forrest Gump and the fact that people read that ****, don't realize the
elements CLEARLY MISSING from the reports and then still buy into it,
yep, that makes them idiots in my book.

[Alan J]

2-3c of warming would open up a large part of Russia, Canada to farming and growing food. I believe that equals more land overall then we now can farm on being the landfall mass grows larger in area as you go north. Nuclear would lower my power bills and yours. Support it.

Having land available for planting food doesn't mean you can actually grow food on it. There are other considerations to farming besides space. Like, say, rainfall, temperature, soil quality, etc.

I already support nuclear power.

Solar cycles line up to the cold and warm periods. In the 20th century we had the highest level of solar output since the mid evil warm period. Of course that is going away...I was reading a study that points to that these solar cycles in fact do have a much larger effect on our climate then your nasa, IPCC thought. It makes perfect sense.

Correlation does not prove causation. Besides that simple and obvious fact, solar cycles don't line up very well with the warming temperatures. In fact, any correlation between TSI and the warming trend ended over 30 years ago.

We are also going towards many enhancement of solar cycles ranging from the 11,22, ect all the way leading towards another ice age that could happen now. A major one. How would you feel if we came out of this innerglacial period within the next 50-100 years??? Is it really worth destroying our economy, if we destroyed our economy then billions would die that would not of died if our economy was at its peak strength. We can't afford it. I've done enough study on this to know that a ice age is just about due when you look at the cycles of the last 2,000 year ice age we are in. Lets say another cycle is about ready to load? OF course your say bs and say that all life on earth is going to burn by 2-3c of temperature warming in the next 100 years. The little ice age was world wide.

Thus far, the AGW deniers have failed, miserably, to provide any evidence that the planet is headed toward any sudden ice age. Aside, of course, from saying things like, "Hey guys, seriously, there's less sunspots right now. So that's probably a sign of an impending ice age!"

In one more thing nothing is more important to our climate then the sun. The sun rules this whole solar system with a IRON fist like a king. It controls our climate and the output of it can change changing our climate in a short time.

That hardly means that changes in solar output must necessarily be the cause of every climate change the planet experiences. I just can't fathom why you guys can't grasp this one, simple thing.

[SabercatPuck]

Sometimes the simplest way is the best way.....

AJ, As Forrest Gump would say...you cant see the forest through the trees..... Your so busy looking for the needle in the hay stack that you cant see the hay stack burning....
Of all of my rules for electronic troubleshooting, the number 1 rule is Keep It Simple Stupid, and it flows into so many other things in life as well.

[Alan J]

Sometimes the simplest way is the best way.....

AJ, As Forrest Gump would say...you cant see the forest through the trees..... Your so busy looking for the needle in the hay stack that you cant see the hay stack burning....

Sometimes. But absurdly oversimplifying complicated things is never the best way. It's the worst way.

[Alan J]

I've read quite a few of you nutball AGW supporters scientific papers.
I'm not a rube, nor am I uneducated. I can read and comprehend what I'm reading.
Scientific gobbleydeegook included for the most part.

In not one of those papers has any account of the increase UV radiation from
high sunspot activity been taken into account.
In all cases , solar activity has been totally dismissed out of hand.

So yeah, I'm thinking that they are nutballs that aren't nearly as smart
as Forrest Gump and the fact that people read that ****, don't realize the
elements CLEARLY MISSING from the reports and then still buy into it,
yep, that makes them idiots in my book.

No climate scientist has ever, in the history of climate science, dismissed or ignored the sun's role in climate change. Not once. Anyone who has taken even a cursory glance at the published literature on the subject should know this.

[SabercatPuck]

Correlation does not prove causation. Besides that simple and obvious fact, solar cycles don't line up very well with the warming temperatures. In fact, any correlation between TSI and the warming trend ended over 30 years ago.

Now here I thought you tried to argue that the sun was involved just a couple posts ago and yet here you go again, trying to make us out as believing that the only thing it could possibly be from the sun is TSI, yet we recognize that TSI is not among the primary drivers. In fact the only component that, from an iradiance standpoint, shows any corrolation with enough oomph to do much is UV.
Now when you move off of the light from the sun and into the wind and magnetics, there can be found very large interactions between the solar cycles and earth climate.

[Alan J]

Now here I thought you tried to argue that the sun was involved just a couple posts ago and yet here you go again, trying to make us out as believing that the only thing it could possibly be from the sun is TSI, yet we recognize that TSI is not among the primary drivers. In fact the only component that, from an iradiance standpoint, shows any corrolation with enough oomph to do much is UV.
Now when you move off of the light from the sun and into the wind and magnetics, there can be found very large interactions between the solar cycles and earth climate.

None of the various solar cycles is capable of explaining the bulk of 20th century warming. That doesn't mean that the sun has no effect on the Earth's climate.

I'm making two separate arguments here: first, that nobody believes that the sun doesn't affect the Earth's climate; second, that the sun isn't causing the current warming. See if you can puzzle out which one I'm making where.

[nunyadb]

No climate scientist has ever, in the history of climate science, dismissed or ignored the sun's role in climate change. Not once. Anyone who has taken even a cursory glance at the published literature on the subject should know this.

I took a great deal more than a "cursory glance" at those papers.
Most of them did just exactly what you have been doing here in this forum.
Dismiss the minor variations in solar radiance as being "insufficient" to account
for the "currently noticeable temperature variances".

What they did NOT do, ever, was to take into account the massive increase of
the amount of UV radiation that is released by every solar flare that happens.
The amount of UV that gets down to the planet during every solar flare goes up
by as much as a factor of 100.
In case you did not know this, UV is a form of radiation that produces heat when
it makes contact with a solid or liquid that absorbs said radiation.

I did read ONE, note , ONE paper that took that fact into account.
It was published in Sweden of all places and it was thoroughly vetted and it's
accuracy accepted. However, the AGW crowd refused to admit it's existence
or even to read or allow to be presented the results of that study and it's potential
impact on the global climate debate.

So, I can now take it as a matter of fact, not faith, that the AGW crowd uses
biased data, refuses to accept any contradictory data, and therefore is not
using true science. That tells ME, a thinking reasoning individual that HAD HAD
and open mind on this subject that there is an agenda at work and that
conclusions had been reached before the data was even presented.

When that happens, real science goes out the window and the politicians of
the world are playing games to get scientists to "prove the conclusion" that
has already been announced.

That's not science, that's horse ****.
So pardon me if I recognize horse **** when I see it.
I don't have to taste it to know what it is.

[Alan J]

I took a great deal more than a "cursory glance" at those papers.
Most of them did just exactly what you have been doing here in this forum.
Dismiss the minor variations in solar radiance as being "insufficient" to account
for the "currently noticeable temperature variances".

What they did NOT do, ever, was to take into account the massive increase of
the amount of UV radiation that is released by every solar flare that happens.
The amount of UV that gets down to the planet during every solar flare goes up
by as much as a factor of 100.
In case you did not know this, UV is a form of radiation that produces heat when
it makes contact with a solid or liquid that absorbs said radiation.

How exactly do you think UV radiation is different than other wavelengths in that way?

I did read ONE, note , ONE paper that took that fact into account.
It was published in Sweden of all places and it was thoroughly vetted and it's
accuracy accepted. However, the AGW crowd refused to admit it's existence
or even to read or allow to be presented the results of that study and it's potential
impact on the global climate debate.

So, I can now take it as a matter of fact, not faith, that the AGW crowd uses
biased data, refuses to accept any contradictory data, and therefore is not
using true science. That tells ME, a thinking reasoning individual that HAD HAD
and open mind on this subject that there is an agenda at work and that
conclusions had been reached before the data was even presented.

When that happens, real science goes out the window and the politicians of
the world are playing games to get scientists to "prove the conclusion" that
has already been announced.

That's not science, that's horse ****.
So pardon me if I recognize horse **** when I see it.
I don't have to taste it to know what it is.

The IPCC Assessment Reports are a synthesis of the available peer reviewed research on climate change. Being that they represent the majority scientific opinion on the issue, we can conclude that if they consider solar influence on climate, than the rest of the scientific community has as well. Here, for your perusal, is Chapter 2 of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf)

[milton21]

Here is my question once we spend 100 - ? Billion to fight C02 and the temperatures continue to fall. Yes I said continue to fall like they have been over the last 3 years. Will the global warming environmentalist claim victory or admin they were wrong. I would have to say look here done by NASA (maybe NASA is part of the coverup) http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/ (http://www.dakotavoice.com/2009/06/nasa-study-shows-sun-responsible-for-planet-warming/)
Think of this C02 makes up .034% of our atmosphere. Of that we add .15% with our living. So we add .00051% to the atmosphere. Water vapor heats up 2-4 times faster then C02 cant remember the rate and this makes up 1% of our atmosphere. We are not warming the planet. However we are giving plants more to eat. More plants more animals keep on running you lights and driving your SUV plants love c02. If you want your kids to have a greener earth drive an suv.

[Rurudyne]

The Hippy Dippy Weatherman knew more about climate change that either Hansen or Gore. ;)

[Billy_Bob]

Having land available for planting food doesn't mean you can actually grow food on it. There are other considerations to farming besides space. Like, say, rainfall, temperature, soil quality, etc.

I already support nuclear power.



Correlation does not prove causation. Besides that simple and obvious fact, solar cycles don't line up very well with the warming temperatures. In fact, any correlation between TSI and the warming trend ended over 30 years ago.



Thus far, the AGW deniers have failed, miserably, to provide any evidence that the planet is headed toward any sudden ice age. Aside, of course, from saying things like, "Hey guys, seriously, there's less sunspots right now. So that's probably a sign of an impending ice age!"



That hardly means that changes in solar output must necessarily be the cause of every climate change the planet experiences. I just can't fathom why you guys can't grasp this one, simple thing.

There are many factors that change the earths balance.... One factor by its self is insufficient to make huge changes in the earths systems, except one.....The Sun... simply put the sun puts out solar wind (ion flow). directed ion flow reflect or bounce off the earths atmosphere. these flows increase and decrease in relation to sun spot and magnetic activity on the sun.

Stray Ions (cosmic rays) do not pull on the earths atmosphere because by themselves they do not make enough gravity to elongate the earths fields and cause the ions to bounce off the atmosphere. These ions cause low level water vapor to ionize and form clouds. This further cools the planet.

During times of high solar wind these skipping ions are swept up in the magnetic fields and are pulled along with the wind. During low solar activity (wind) these enter the atmosphere and cause cloud cover increase.

We have lower TSI...

Then we add increased cloud cover...

Then we add local Oceanic osculations (ADO, PDO, ENSO) all localized events...

The sun by just varying a little bit can cause a total loss of heat equal to 3% by insolation and solar output combined....

A 3% change??? Because UV is the main heat transfer it is most effected..

So AJ what would a 3% change in heat absorption at surface level do to the planet? Then add the effects locally of the oceanic warming or cooling....

[nunyadb]

There are many factors that change the earths balance.... One factor by its self is insufficient to make huge changes in the earths systems, except one.....The Sun... simply put the sun puts out solar wind (ion flow). directed ion flow reflect or bounce off the earths atmosphere. these flows increase and decrease in relation to sun spot and magnetic activity on the sun.

Stray Ions (cosmic rays) do not pull on the earths atmosphere because by themselves they do not make enough gravity to elongate the earths fields and cause the ions to bounce off the atmosphere. These ions cause low level water vapor to ionize and form clouds. This further cools the planet.

During times of high solar wind these skipping ions are swept up in the magnetic fields and are pulled along with the wind. During low solar activity (wind) these enter the atmosphere and cause cloud cover increase.

We have lower TSI...

Then we add increased cloud cover...

Then we add local Oceanic osculations (ADO, PDO, ENSO) all localized events...

The sun by just varying a little bit can cause a total loss of heat equal to 3% by insolation and solar output combined....

A 3% change??? Because UV is the main heat transfer it is most effected..

So AJ what would a 3% change in heat absorption at surface level do to the planet? Then add the effects locally of the oceanic warming or cooling....

I tried to tell him that they don't account for UV level variances with every single
sunspot that comes along. I'm done talking to these people, it's an absolute waste of electrons to try and get them to see any sort of reason.

[Alan J]

There are many factors that change the earths balance.... One factor by its self is insufficient to make huge changes in the earths systems, except one.....The Sun... simply put the sun puts out solar wind (ion flow). directed ion flow reflect or bounce off the earths atmosphere. these flows increase and decrease in relation to sun spot and magnetic activity on the sun.

Stray Ions (cosmic rays) do not pull on the earths atmosphere because by themselves they do not make enough gravity to elongate the earths fields and cause the ions to bounce off the atmosphere. These ions cause low level water vapor to ionize and form clouds. This further cools the planet.

During times of high solar wind these skipping ions are swept up in the magnetic fields and are pulled along with the wind. During low solar activity (wind) these enter the atmosphere and cause cloud cover increase.

We have lower TSI...

Then we add increased cloud cover...

Then we add local Oceanic osculations (ADO, PDO, ENSO) all localized events...

First, there isn't much solid evidence that cosmic rays have a significant impact on cloud formation. Second, you're throwing all of these different factors out there without doing any actual analysis of their real impacts. You don't know what the impact of the change in TSI we've seen over the past couple of years is, nor the significance of the oceanic oscillations on long term climate change. You just know that each of them may provide a negative forcing, and that's good enough for you. That's what I'm talking about when I say you've yet to provide any solid evidence of an impending ice age.

The sun by just varying a little bit can cause a total loss of heat equal to 3% by insolation and solar output combined....

A 3% change??? Because UV is the main heat transfer it is most effected..

So AJ what would a 3% change in heat absorption at surface level do to the planet? Then add the effects locally of the oceanic warming or cooling....

What evidence do you have that the sun's output is about to vary by 3%?

[Matthewobamahater]

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/03sep_sunspots.htm

Big time solar grandminimum could be coming. We will see what the effects on the climate are.

[milton21]

Yeah the sun has no effect that is why the ice caps are melting ( ON MARS ). We probably caused this as well. We did send an SUV or rover thats powered by the sun. Stop talking about global warming, Stop watching Al Gore's movie, and stop the goverment from passing Cap'en Trade!

[Billy_Bob]

First, there isn't much solid evidence that cosmic rays have a significant impact on cloud formation. Second, you're throwing all of these different factors out there without doing any actual analysis of their real impacts. You don't know what impact the change in TSI we've seen over the past couple of years is, nor the significance of the oceanic oscillations on long term climate change. You just know that each of them may provide a negative forcing, and that's good enough for you. That's what I'm talking about when I say you've yet to provide any solid evidence of an impending ice age.



What evidence do you have that the sun's output is about to vary by 3%?

I am involved in research that shows the effect of reduced TSI at the earths surface. We have specifically targeted the earths atmosphere. there are roughly 200 points on the earth that are measured once a day by a sensor array on the ground and a passing, polar orbiting satellite. Because these satellites are about 6000kl above the earth they measure TSI prior to entering the atmosphere. By drawing a straight line from the earth to the sun each point is passed by a bird and is measured simultaneously. the loss is calculated, and meteorological measurements as well.

This Solar minimum has been fascinating in that the effects on ionizing radiation and low solar wind have been very easily spotted and determined. We are currently averaging the locations and we are averaging 2.1% solar reduction in the atmosphere and cloud cover is at +2.8% over 2000-2007 average.

So even thought the suns total output doesn't waver it is changing the atmosphere composition....and the amount of absorbed or reflected heat.

With earth Oceans as a balancing battery the effects of temp/heat absorption are not felt for 5-10 years... we have been flat temp wise since 1998. it is now 2009.... the trend will soon be evident...Oceanic rollover is happening all over the planet indicating that level one and level two have become so close in temp that they roll...

You will see CO2 be sucked up into the ocean and the total earth atmospheric CO2 decrease... in fact it is already happening...

[Billy_Bob]

I tried to tell him that they don't account for UV level variances with every single
sunspot that comes along. I'm done talking to these people, it's an absolute waste of electrons to try and get them to see any sort of reason.

Most of our esteemed science community is simply measuring TSI on clear cloudless days... so they do not average those areas of negative impact. SO they never see the diminished total dissipation...

the affliction is called blinders..... sadly many on both sides wear them..

[Samm]

That's probably the most simplistic view of the Earth's climate I've heard of. And it seems to be believed by almost every single AGW denier out there.

No... the most simplistic view of Earth's climate would be that man is causing it to change.

I think SaberCatPuck's signature line says it best:

"A climate scientist focusing on CO2 is a bit like the man who lost his keys half a block away but looks under the light post because that is where he can see" - Nir Shaviv Racah Inst. of Physics

[jprin]

I am involved in research that shows the effect of reduced TSI at the earths surface. We have specifically targeted the earths atmosphere. there are roughly 200 points on the earth that are measured once a day by a sensor array on the ground and a passing, polar orbiting satellite. Because these satellites are about 6000kl above the earth they measure TSI prior to entering the atmosphere. By drawing a straight line from the earth to the sun each point is passed by a bird and is measured simultaneously. the loss is calculated, and meteorological measurements as well.

This Solar minimum has been fascinating in that the effects on ionizing radiation and low solar wind have been very easily spotted and determined. We are currently averaging the locations and we are averaging 2.1% solar reduction in the atmosphere and cloud cover is at +2.8% over 2000-2007 average.

So even thought the suns total output doesn't waver it is changing the atmosphere composition....and the amount of absorbed or reflected heat.

With earth Oceans as a balancing battery the effects of temp/heat absorption are not felt for 5-10 years... we have been flat temp wise since 1998. it is now 2009.... the trend will soon be evident...Oceanic rollover is happening all over the planet indicating that level one and level two have become so close in temp that they roll...

You will see CO2 be sucked up into the ocean and the total earth atmospheric CO2 decrease... in fact it is already happening...

Interesting stuff. A few billion years ago, the sun was producing about 1/3 less energy than today (I think that's right, it's one of the few things I remember from Physics class, but I'm open to correction) and at that time the earth was much warmer than today. How can that be?

[Billy_Bob]

Interesting stuff. A few billion years ago, the sun was producing about 1/3 less energy than today (I think that's right, it's one of the few things I remember from Physics class, but I'm open to correction) and at that time the earth was much warmer than today. How can that be?

how thick and what was the earths atmospheric composition? and it was mighty cold 450,000 years ago... as for billions of years... gonna need a time machine and probably a self contained suit....

Edit: going to need that self contained suit and it better be flame proof. Volcanism and high sulfuric acid content. Very thin atmosphere.. no protection from the suns output like we have now... Yep going to be real hot.... no doubt about it

[Alan J]

I am involved in research that shows the effect of reduced TSI at the earths surface. We have specifically targeted the earths atmosphere. there are roughly 200 points on the earth that are measured once a day by a sensor array on the ground and a passing, polar orbiting satellite. Because these satellites are about 6000kl above the earth they measure TSI prior to entering the atmosphere. By drawing a straight line from the earth to the sun each point is passed by a bird and is measured simultaneously. the loss is calculated, and meteorological measurements as well.

This Solar minimum has been fascinating in that the effects on ionizing radiation and low solar wind have been very easily spotted and determined. We are currently averaging the locations and we are averaging 2.1% solar reduction in the atmosphere and cloud cover is at +2.8% over 2000-2007 average.

So even thought the suns total output doesn't waver it is changing the atmosphere composition....and the amount of absorbed or reflected heat.

Ok.

With earth Oceans as a balancing battery the effects of temp/heat absorption are not felt for 5-10 years... we have been flat temp wise since 1998. it is now 2009.... the trend will soon be evident...Oceanic rollover is happening all over the planet indicating that level one and level two have become so close in temp that they roll...

... Or the warming trend will continue. Which is rather more likely considering the fact that we're still pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the air every year.

You will see CO2 be sucked up into the ocean and the total earth atmospheric CO2 decrease... in fact it is already happening...

The CO2 content of the oceans is increasing, so they definitely aren't sucking up CO2 yet.

[Alan J]

No... the most simplistic view of Earth's climate would be that man is causing it to change.

Why is that a simplistic view?

[Billy_Bob]

Ok.



... Or the warming trend will continue. Which is rather more likely considering the fact that we're still pumping billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the air every year.

No.. your assessment is wrong. we have diminished solar reserves. Oceanic turnover is happening. some due to wind but the majority due to heat balance between levels one and two becoming equal. the salinity difference causes rollover when the solutions are at equal temp (or darn close) This means the last ten years of decreased heat absorption are catching up with us. We are at break point the next 5 years, if the sun remains at grand minimum, will drop off quickly globally.


The CO2 content of the oceans is increasing, so they definitely aren't sucking up CO2 yet.

AS they roll they compress CO2 into lower levels. not quite sure why it happens but look at global trends right now.. Is it the economy or is it the sea?

[Samm]

Why is that a simplistic view?

:)) :)) :))

Are you serious? :eh:

[Alan J]

No.. your assessment is wrong. we have diminished solar reserves. Oceanic turnover is happening. some due to wind but the majority due to heat balance between levels one and two becoming equal. the salinity difference causes rollover when the solutions are at equal temp (or darn close) This means the last ten years of decreased heat absorption are catching up with us. We are at break point the next 5 years, if the sun remains at grand minimum, will drop off quickly globally.

Or it won't. I've already said this, you haven't provided any evidence that the factors you're talking about are going to overcome the positive forcing we're providing.

AS they roll they compress CO2 into lower levels. not quite sure why it happens but look at global trends right now.. Is it the economy or is it the sea?

The global trend in CO2 is positive. I'm not sure what you're wanting me to look at there.

[Alan J]

:)) :)) :))

Are you serious? :eh:

Well, I'm as serious as I ever am.

[Jagergeist]

I know this is a hot topic here and I guess it's moot since the people in charge have accepted climate change as real and are working on the problem.

My only 2 cents worth is that I hope in a generation or two we of this generation are not hated and despised for ignoring the problem of global warming and spending like drunken sailors on everything but solutions for the problem.

[Samm]

Well, I'm as serious as I ever am.

Well that explains it... you have been joking with us all along. ;)

[Alan J]

Well that explains it... you have been joking with us all along. ;)

I hope not. Cause if I'm joking I'm like the unfunniest comedian ever. And that would just be terrible.

[Samm]

I know this is a hot topic here and I guess it's moot since the people in charge have accepted climate change as real and are working on the problem.

My only 2 cents worth is that I hope in a generation or two we of this generation are not hated and despised for ignoring the problem of global warming and spending like drunken sailors on everything but solutions for the problem.

What will that generation have to say about us if they are living in a 3rd world economy under the fist of China or some other despotic government because we squandered all of our economic might on trying to solve a problem that turned out not to exist?

There is a very good rule of thumb to follow in these type of situations...

Don't try to fix it until you determine what (if anything) is broken.

Just because it is politically popular to say that man emitted CO2 is causing global warming; or worse, is going to cause a global catastrophe, does not make it true. But to strangle our economy and fore go the use of our abundant natural resources based on this highly questionable theory is just plain stupid.

[Samm]

I hope not. Cause if I'm joking I'm like the unfunniest comedian ever. And that would just be terrible.

That is why I haven't been laughing up until now. :razz:

[Lee Kington]

Revisiting the GISP graph I previously attached. The article / study in question states a reversal of a 2000 year long cooling trend in the Arctic and the reversal is caused by CO2.

This image is, essentially, simply a section of the previously attached graph of GISP ice core data. It shows specifically the last 2,000 years.

http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg136/BigLee57/GISP.gif

Note there was a reversal in the cooling trend 1800 years ago. Note that there was a reversal of the cooling trend 1200 years ago.... all without man and his CO2. Also note the current reversal started 200 years ago.... without massive amounts of CO2 from man.

Essentially the 2,000 year cooling trend claim is a bit disingenuous as it totally ignores (fails to note) previous and lengthy trends of warming.

Edited to clarify last sentence. The claim of the study in question insinuates that there was a continuous and uninterrupted cooling for 2,000 years. The GISP data indicates that not to be the case.

[bigtwnvin]

:think:
Not being a scientist I always thought solar activity directly affected the earths climate. Since there isn't a blessed thing anybody can do about the sun, Al Gore sure has made ssucker out of a lot of morons! :dance:

[Alan J]

That is why I haven't been laughing up until now. :razz:

I'm almost positive I resent that comment. I think.

[Matthewobamahater]

Lets say global warming is REAL and we are going to warm up 3-4c over the next 200 years. That would place us back to the Climate we had 70-90 million years ago. The earth would be able to grow a lot more food because at that time it could feed monsters that could eat many times more food then even us are. Those dino's didn't get big for nothing. IN the human race would become richer for it.

I'm a supporter of it,,,how on earth would it become more hostile towards humanity is against the dino's. Watch humanity grow 10 fold if that happened. We would be forced to build on the moon and mars.

The population of earth was below one billion up until 1803. We are almost 7 times that now within 206 years.

[Billy_Bob]

Or it won't. I've already said this, you haven't provided any evidence that the factors you're talking about are going to overcome the positive forcing we're providing.



The global trend in CO2 is positive. I'm not sure what you're wanting me to look at there.

Give me a break... CO2 can not by numerical/mathematical possibility do what you suggest...

[Alan J]

Give me a break... CO2 can not by numerical/mathematical possibility do what you suggest...

Prove it.

[catocom]

they say they closed the hole in the ozone layer some years back.
maybe if they hadn't tried to 'fix' it.
maybe we need to blow another whole in it.

[Billy_Bob]

Prove it.

As singular gas that is only 3% of earths atmosphere, which has a log10 diminishing effect...which means above about 1300ppm it has little or no warming effect. between 700ppm and 1300ppm the warming curve drops significantly. between 300ppm and 700ppm is the biggest potential for holding heat and that potential is only .765Deg C (<1deg C)

Total effect of 1300ppm is rated at just +1.78Deg C.

So lets look at mans contribution... 3% of the total CO2 (which is 3% of the total atmosphere) is .01%

1.78 x .01 = .0178Deg C. and if i double it, it's still = 0.0356 Deg C at 1300ppm..... Both of which are negligible in relation to the earth.

I'd be more concerned with what cosmic rays do to the lower atmosphere... CO2 is a looser except to gain control of peoples lives..

[Samm]

I'm almost positive I resent that comment. I think.

;)

[Samm]

As singular gas that is only 3% of earths atmosphere, which has a log10 diminishing effect...which means above about 1300ppm it has little or no warming effect. between 700ppm and 1300ppm the warming curve drops significantly. between 300ppm and 700ppm is the biggest potential for holding heat and that potential is only .765Deg C (<1deg C)

Total effect of 1300ppm is rated at just +1.78Deg C.

So lets look at mans contribution... 3% of the total CO2 (which is 3% of the total atmosphere) is .01%

1.78 x .01 = .0178Deg C. and if i double it, it's still = 0.0356 Deg C at 1300ppm..... Both of which are negligible in relation to the earth.

I'd be more concerned with what cosmic rays do to the lower atmosphere... CO2 is a looser except to gain control of peoples lives..

BB... CO2 is only about 0.04% of the atmosphere... but you are right about the potential effect of increasing CO2 on temperature. A quadrupling of the current concentration would add no more than about 0.8 C to global temperature. Concentrations above 1600 ppm have essentially no effect on temperature.

[Alan J]

As singular gas that is only 3% of earths atmosphere, which has a log10 diminishing effect...which means above about 1300ppm it has little or no warming effect. between 700ppm and 1300ppm the warming curve drops significantly. between 300ppm and 700ppm is the biggest potential for holding heat and that potential is only .765Deg C (<1deg C)

Total effect of 1300ppm is rated at just +1.78Deg C.

So lets look at mans contribution... 3% of the total CO2 (which is 3% of the total atmosphere) is .01%

1.78 x .01 = .0178Deg C. and if i double it, it's still = 0.0356 Deg C at 1300ppm..... Both of which are negligible in relation to the earth.

I'd be more concerned with what cosmic rays do to the lower atmosphere... CO2 is a looser except to gain control of peoples lives..

This is an interesting example of just making stuff up. But it does nothing to prove your point that CO2 isn't capable of what I claim it is.

CO2 isn't 3% of the atmosphere, it's something like 0.04% of the atmosphere. But it makes up a substantial part of the greenhouse effect (9-26% considering spectral overlap with the other absorbers). And the human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere isn't 3%, it's almost 30%. CO2's "potential for holding heat," by which I think you mean climate sensitivity, is pretty close to 1ºC, without feedbacks (considering feedbacks, the IPCC AR4 estimates sensitivity between 2-4.5 ºC, with 3ºC being the best estimate).

So CO2 is perfectly capable of producing the bulk of the observed 20th century warming trend, as I've claimed.

Try as I might, I can't for the life of me puzzle out what you think you were doing with your math.

[Billy_Bob]

This is an interesting example of just making stuff up. But it does nothing to prove your point that CO2 isn't capable of what I claim it is.

CO2 isn't 3% of the atmosphere, it's something like 0.04% of the atmosphere. But it makes up a substantial part of the greenhouse effect (9-26% considering spectral overlap with the other absorbers). And the human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere isn't 3%, it's almost 30%. CO2's "potential for holding heat," by which I think you mean climate sensitivity, is pretty close to 1ºC, without feedbacks (considering feedbacks, the IPCC AR4 estimates sensitivity between 2-4.5 ºC, with 3ºC being the best estimate).

So CO2 is perfectly capable of producing the bulk of the observed 20th century warming trend, as I've claimed.

Try as I might, I can't for the life of me puzzle out what you think you were doing with your math.

Prove your assumption....

As for Co2 you are wrong in its effect! IF i were to adjust the math it would mean MUCH LESS of forcing and the example i used was insignificant at best. if i lowered the estimate of forcing it would be Divided by 100... SO add two zeros to the front and move the decimal... you are capable of that... I think?:think:

[PhantomPholly]

For the 1% of the population...

When you start with a false left-wing talking point, no one listens to you because you portray yourself as an irrational fanatic.

The Theory of Global Warming states that all recent heating on the planet (if there is any, which seems to be in doubt) is caused by CO2 (a natural part of our ecology), specifically that generated by mankind.

That theory has been categorically disproven. That does not mean that mankind's actions do not contribute to temperature changes, nor that man-made CO2 does not play a role in those temperature changes.

What it does mean is that when you take the position that we are all going to suffer dire consequences because of man-made CO2 while simultaneously deny the noted effects of solar variation; Global Dimming; changes in ocean currents; localized heating due to vast spreading of asphalt; unscientific placement and erroneous monitoring of temperature recording devices; and a myriad of other factors either excluded or poorly accounted for in the studies - well, then we all know that the only REAL emergency is the one which will bankrupt our country if we allow the nuts to pass Cap and Spend.

If the pushers of Cap & Tax were truly serious about "fixing the ecology," then there would be no trading. Taxes collected would be used solely to address the one proven cause of pollution - too many people. Since no one seems interested in addressing that problem, then we can safely and scientifically conclude that this is not a real crisis but merely an excuse to grab both power and money.

[SFC(R)L]

This is an interesting example of just making stuff up. But it does nothing to prove your point that CO2 isn't capable of what I claim it is.

CO2 isn't 3% of the atmosphere, it's something like 0.04% of the atmosphere. But it makes up a substantial part of the greenhouse effect (9-26% considering spectral overlap with the other absorbers). And the human contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere isn't 3%, it's almost 30%. CO2's "potential for holding heat," by which I think you mean climate sensitivity, is pretty close to 1ºC, without feedbacks (considering feedbacks, the IPCC AR4 estimates sensitivity between 2-4.5 ºC, with 3ºC being the best estimate).

So CO2 is perfectly capable of producing the bulk of the observed 20th century warming trend, as I've claimed.

Try as I might, I can't for the life of me puzzle out what you think you were doing with your math.

Indoor Growing - Using CO2
Submitted by Green Air Products

First a little Plant Science 101 - For a successful, productive garden, hydroponic, indoor and greenhouse growers must control six "essential elements" - air, light, nutrients, water, humidity and temperature. Remove or alter the ratio of only one of these elements, growth will slow, and plants could eventually die. In this article, we will review the air element, specifically carbon dioxide (CO2), it's role in the most vital plant process - photosynthesis - and how to effectively implement CO2 systems.

Photosynthesis begins when stomata, pore-like openings on the undersides of leaves, are activated by light and begin breathing in carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air. This CO2 is broken down into carbon (C) and oxygen (O). Some of the O is used for other plants processes, but most is expelled back into the air. The C is combined with water to form sugar molecules, which are then converted into carbohydrates. These carbohydrates (starches) combine with nutrients, such as nitrogen, to produce new plant tissues. CO2 is vital to plant growth and development, and yet is often the most overlooked element in indoor gardening.

Successful indoor growers implement methods to increase CO2 concentrations in their enclosure. The typical outdoor air we breathe contains 0.03 - 0.045% (300 - 450 ppm) CO2. Research demonstrates that optimum growth and production for most plants occur between 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. These optimum CO2 levels can boost plant metabolism, growth and yield by 25 - 60%.
http://www.planetnatural.com/site/xdpy/kb/implementing-co2.html

about 90% of all CO2 produced is recycled by green plants.

The Sun, however, heats the planet.

[Alan J]

Prove your assumption....

Since the mid 19th century, CO2 levels have increased from about 260 ppm to about 380 ppm today because of the combustion of fossil fuels. That's an increase of 120 ppm, or about 30%. That isn't an assumption, it's a fact easily verified by anyone who can do arithmetic.

As for Co2 you are wrong in its effect! IF i were to adjust the math it would mean MUCH LESS of forcing and the example i used was insignificant at best. if i lowered the estimate of forcing it would be Divided by 100... SO add two zeros to the front and move the decimal... you are capable of that... I think?:think:

Except all of your adjustments appear to simply be made up off the top of your head for no reason whatsoever.

[Alan J]

about 90% of all CO2 produced is recycled by green plants.

The Sun, however, heats the planet.

Ok. I don't see what point you're trying to make.

[Billy_Bob]

Since the mid 19th century, CO2 levels have increased from about 260 ppm to about 380 ppm today because of the combustion of fossil fuels. That's an increase of 120 ppm, or about 30%. That isn't an assumption, it's a fact easily verified by anyone who can do arithmetic.



Wow...Assumption based on what?

[Billy_Bob]

Ok. I don't see what point you're trying to make.

Hence the reason no one can debate with you..

[Alan J]

Wow...Assumption based on what?

It's... not an assumption. 120 is 32% of 380. It's based... on math. I don't know how I can possibly explain that so that it's any clearer for you.

[Alan J]

Hence the reason no one can debate with you..

Nobody can debate me because they can't communicate clearly?

[Billy_Bob]

Lets do some math.....

First we need to set the base line trend..(or the natural rise happening)

Then we determine the difference which equals about 60 ppm

So 60ppm / 393ppm = 15.2671% which is equal to mans total contribution IF there are not other areas of natural CO2 increase...

[Billy_Bob]

It's... not an assumption. 120 is 32% of 380. It's based... on math. I don't know how I can possibly explain that so that it's any clearer for you.

Do you always increase your factors by 2?

[Alan J]

Lets do some math.....

First we need to set the base line trend..(or the natural rise happening)

Then we determine the difference which equals about 60 ppm

So 60ppm / 393ppm = 15.2671% which is equal to mans total contribution IF there are not other areas of natural CO2 increase...

Wha...? You've just taken the difference between the concentrations in about 1960 and today. You need to take the difference between about 1850 and today. Looking at your graph, the difference is about 120ppm, or... 32%.

[Alan J]

Do you always increase your factors by 2?

Only when I'm talking about myself.

[Billy_Bob]

Wha...? You've just taken the difference between the concentrations in about 1960 and today. You need to take the difference between about 1850 and today. Looking at your graph, the difference is about 120ppm, or... 32%.

SO your taking the TOTAL and saying it is man caused?

I get it now... You think everything is man caused....

So natural variation isn't figured in your assessment.. Exactly why the IPCC is crap!

[B' en Natuf]

Wha...? You've just taken the difference between the concentrations in about 1960 and today. You need to take the difference between about 1850 and today. Looking at your graph, the difference is about 120ppm, or... 32%.Of course Global warming alarmists want us to measure the difference between 1850 and today. That would be because we were still in the grip of the LIA then and Tundra trapping C02 was much more prevalent.

As the earth thaws (which it is want to do coming out of an ice age) CO2 gets released from its frozen trap. As the Ocean warms it takes up less CO2 and the result is a NATURAL increase in CO2. A very large part of the 100PPM rise is therefor NATURAL. Somehting you global warming religionists seem to not get.

Somethng else you don't seem to get is that there is no correlation between decadal oscilations in CO2 and decadal oscillations in temperature, and on a milenial scale where there is one... its reversed.

You simply cannot limit the time frame for your "findings" to a time frame when the data supports them and then ignore the larger time frame when it doesn't. That is not science, its propoganda.

[Alan J]

SO your taking the TOTAL and saying it is man caused?



Well, yeah, kind of. Almost the entire rise in CO2 we've seen over the last 150 years is the result of the combustion of fossil fuels.

I get it now... You think everything is man caused....

No. I think man caused things are man caused.

So natural variation isn't figured in your assessment.. Exactly why the IPCC is crap!

Of course it is. And if you think the IPCC is ignoring natural variation, you have clearly never read any of the IPCC's work.

[Lee Kington]

And look at this, a direct rebuttal to A. Watts' absurd rebuttal to the piece in the OP:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/arctic-non-analysis/

From WUWT

“Tamino” himself points out that “…most of the temperature change north of latitude 80 deg. has occurred, not in the summer, but in winter/spring/fall.”

It appears that Anthony has a valid point.

With Precession summer aphelion = tendency for a cooler summer but warmer winter. Distance at aphelion has been increasing but is just about at the midpoint.

Obliquity (tilt) = less tilt creates a tendency for a cooler summer but a warmer winter. The tilt of the earth is currently decreasing.

What tamino is saying is that the temperatures are going up in the winter. Well DUH !!! Tamino just proved what Anthony demonstrated to be true, valid, and expected.

[Lee Kington]

Of course it is. And if you think the IPCC is ignoring natural variation, you have clearly never read any of the IPCC's work. The IPCC does not do any scientific work.

[Alan J]

Of course Global warming alarmists want us to measure the difference between 1850 and today. That would be because we were still in the grip of the LIA then and Tundra trapping C02 was much more prevalent.

No, it's because that was the start of the industrial revolution and, unsurprisingly, the start of the rise in atmospheric CO2. If I want to measure the rise in CO2, I need to measure from the time it started rising.

As the earth thaws (which it is want to do coming out of an ice age) CO2 gets released from its frozen trap. As the Ocean warms it takes up less CO2 and the result is a NATURAL increase in CO2. A very large part of the 100PPM rise is therefor NATURAL. Somehting you global warming religionists seem to not get.

No, almost none of the rise is natural. The oceans aren't losing CO2 right now, they're gaining it.

Somethng else you don't seem to get is that there is no correlation between decadal oscilations in CO2 and decadal oscillations in temperature, and on a milenial scale where there is one... its reversed.

There's a pretty good correlation between CO2 and temps of the past century and a half. The correlation isn't perfect because there are more factors affecting the climate than CO2.

You simply cannot limit the time frame for your "findings" to a time frame when the data supports them and then ignore the larger time frame when it doesn't. That is not science, its propoganda.

There's no larger time frame where the data doesn't fit scientist's findings.

[Alan J]

The IPCC does not do any scientific work.

I don't know what you think that means.

[Alan J]

From WUWT



It appears that Anthony has a valid point.

With Precession summer aphelion = tendency for a cooler summer but warmer winter. Distance at aphelion has been increasing but is just about at the midpoint.

Obliquity (tilt) = less tilt creates a tendency for a cooler summer but a warmer winter. The tilt of the earth is currently decreasing.

What tamino is saying is that the temperatures are going up in the winter. Well DUH !!! Tamino just proved what Anthony demonstrated to be true, valid, and expected.

Watts isn't arguing that the Arctic is warming because of changes in Earth's axial tilt. He's trying to argue that there have been no signs of warming in the Arctic at all. And Tamino nicely demonstrated why he's wrong. Not only have there been signs of warming in the Arctic, but they're exactly in line with what we expect from AGW.

[Lee Kington]

Not only have there been signs of warming in the Arctic, but they're exactly in line with what we expect from AGW. They are in line with what is expected from orbital variation.

[Alan J]

They are in line with what is expected from orbital variation.

It may surprise you to learn that orbital variations take place over very long time scales. They don't just happen overnight. Naturally, so do climatic changes resulting from orbital variations. And they take a long time to become noticeable. The warming in the Arctic Tamino is talking about is taking place on a very short timescale over mere tens of years. This warming definitely isn't the result of changes in Earth's axial tilt.

[B' en Natuf]

No, it's because that was the start of the industrial revolution and, unsurprisingly, the start of the rise in atmospheric CO2. If I want to measure the rise in CO2, I need to measure from the time it started rising.the fact that the industrial revolution happenned to coincide with the end of the LIA niether proves nor negates any "findings". Its merely a coincidence.



No, almost none of the rise is natural. The oceans aren't losing CO2 right now, they're gaining it. Your premise is patently false. When the earth thaws the frozen tundra releases trapped CO2 into the atmosphere, and as the oceans warm the mechanism of ocean atmosphere mixing takes up less of it. This scenario does not require a degassing, just more atmospheric CO2 (via thawing) and less mixing (via warming).



There's a pretty good correlation between CO2 and temps of the past century and a half. The correlation isn't perfect because there are more factors affecting the climate than CO2.again patently false. There is no correlation unless one limits the scope of evidence to periods when its known a correlation exists and ignores all periods when it doesn't.



There's no larger time frame where the data doesn't fit scientist's findings.Thats just funny.

[Alan J]

the fact that the industrial revolution happenned to coincide with the end of the LIA niether proves nor negates any "findings". Its merely a coincidence.

That's true. But the fact that the CO2 rise started at the precise moment we started pumping massive amounts of it into the atmosphere is hardly a coincidence at all. Nor is the fact that CO2 has risen by the amount that we've produced. Nor is the fact that analyzation of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere reveals that the CO2 is the result of fossil fuel combustion. All of those things show, beyond all reasonable doubt, that humans are responsible for the rise in CO2.

Your premise is patently false. When the earth thaws the frozen tundra releases trapped CO2 into the atmosphere, and as the oceans warm the mechanism of ocean atmosphere mixing takes up less of it. This scenario does not require a degassing, just more atmospheric CO2 (via thawing) and less mixing (via warming).

Good point. I shouldn't say that almost none of the rise is natural, when some of it is indeed coming from feedback mechanisms resulting from a warming planet. But still, the fact remains that the great bulk of the rise is indeed the result of human activities.

again patently false. There is no correlation unless one limits the scope of evidence to periods when its known a correlation exists and ignores all periods when it doesn't.

I just said that we don't expect CO2 to share a perfect 1 to 1 correlation with temps at all times because of other climate forcings. That isn't ignoring periods when correlation isn't perfect, that's explaining why they're there.

Thats just funny.

Ok.

[Lee Kington]

It may surprise you to learn that orbital variations take place over very long time scales. They don't just happen overnight. Naturally, so do climatic changes resulting from orbital variations. And they take a long time to become noticeable. The warming in the Arctic Tamino is talking about is taking place on a very short timescale over mere tens of years. This warming definitely isn't the result of changes in Earth's axial tilt.

The release at the center of this issue invoked precession of orbit. Thus it is quite valid to compare all claims to the Milankovitch cycles. Now if you want to hold Tamino's references to a few recent decades then you must correlate temperatures in the area with influences from a positive PDO, positive AMO, and dominant ENSO El Nino states.

It is quite clear from numerous peer reviewed papers that the positive PDO and AMO have had an effect in the Arctic.

The one track simple minded concept that all changes in climate are dictated by CO2 is asinine. To continue in that direction is foolish and has no relation to science.

[WildRose]

We are on course to have the quietest hurricane season in thirty years, with very few named storms no major hurricanes, nor even any major tropical storms impacting N. America so far this year. How is this going to square with the "global warming" and "Global Man Made Climate Change" theories?

[Lee Kington]

That's true. But the fact that the CO2 rise started at the precise moment we started pumping massive amounts of it into the atmosphere is hardly a coincidence at all. Nor is the fact that CO2 has risen by the amount that we've produced. Nor is the fact that analyzation of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere reveals that the CO2 is the result of fossil fuel combustion. All of those things show, beyond all reasonable doubt, that humans are responsible for the rise in CO2.

Vague and loose correlation does not demonstrate causation particularly when their are broad areas / time spans of divergence and changes are consistent with other times in history sans claimed causative factor.

I note that you skipped right past this post...
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=60459961&postcount=103

[Alan J]

The release at the center of this issue invoked precession of orbit. Thus it is quite valid to compare all claims to the Milankovitch cycles. Now if you want to hold Tamino's references to a few recent decades then you must correlate temperatures in the area with influences from a positive PDO, positive AMO, and dominant ENSO El Nino states.

It is quite clear from numerous peer reviewed papers that the positive PDO and AMO have had an effect in the Arctic.

There haven't been any trends in oceanic oscillations. They can't possibly explain the observed warming.

The one track simple minded concept that all changes in climate are dictated by CO2 is asinine. To continue in that direction is foolish and has no relation to science.

It's a good thing then that nobody thinks that.

[Alan J]

Vague and loose correlation does not demonstrate causation particularly when their are broad areas / time spans of divergence and changes are consistent with other times in history sans claimed causative factor.

Those correlations are neither vague nor loose. They're clear as crystal. I agree though that correlation doesn't prove causation. However, the fact that the rise in CO2 is undoubtedly the result of the combustion of fossil fuels does indeed prove causation. Unless, there's something other than humans burning fossil fuels.

I note that you skipped right past this post...
http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=60459961&postcount=103

I didn't know it was directed at me.

I don't know what you're trying to show with it. There was indeed an obvious cooling trend in the Arctic for the past 2000 years. The paper doesn't say that the trend was uninterrupted.

[WildGoose]

For the 1% of the population who still think global warming is a left wing conspiracy here is a paper published this week in Science to consider:

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B6kqlB85LcrPZTNlY2NjNDAtYWE0MC00NmJmL Tk3NjMtZDY5ZTBkNWEyZGJk&hl=en

Take a gander at Figure 3 in particular, the longest record ever published.

...and do your research before you post quotes from some "scientist" who claims there is no global warming. Because in every single case I've ever seen, the guy had either never published in the area or was paid by the oil company or both.

The concept of man-made global warming is not only a hoax, it's a scam.

As an investigator myself, I know a scam when I see and hear one. The dead give away here is the fact that the proponents of the scam quickly tailor their pitches when reality refutes them, as the climate itself always does each year. If you didn't have the research to back global cooling back in the 1800s, 1900s, 1950s, 60s, 70s and 80s when the same con artists were clamoring for government control to save the world from impending ice ages and world-wide droughts, why should any clear thinking human being possibly believe anything the hucksters believe now?

The man-made global warming scam is a conspiracy by the left the purpose of which is to gather more power unto the federal government. How do we know this? Because who do they look to for solutions? Government regulation, taxation, cap and trade carbon credits, and anything else that deprives people of fundament economic and political liberty. You people keep rolling out the same old nonsense hoping to dupe a new population of people who don't know any better than to believe your lies.

I know how complex the climate is. Do you? Do you have any possible inkling of how intricate and complex the world's climate is? Do you know how much moisture is in the air at any given time, how much precipitation occurs around the globe at any given time, what the surface and stratospheric temperatures and pressures are over any given place at any given time? These are but a near endless myriad of situations that are never taken into account by the global warming con-artists because it would deflate their entire premise of world-wide man-made global warming.

But you and your ilk have this theory tied to your ego, and, for some people, their livelihood. There are scientists and institutions who make money off this con, from both government and private investors duped into believing this stuff. So you can't accept the truth because it would make you realize just how much of your life you have wasted in this farce. But the sooner you do, the sooner you can enjoy life, knowing that somethings are, and ought to be, out of your control (or anyone elses).

[B' en Natuf]

That's true. But the fact that the CO2 rise started at the precise moment we started pumping massive amounts of it into the atmosphere is hardly a coincidence at all. Nor is the fact that CO2 has risen by the amount that we've produced. Nor is the fact that analyzation of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere reveals that the CO2 is the result of fossil fuel combustion. All of those things show, beyond all reasonable doubt, that humans are responsible for the rise in CO2.



Good point. I shouldn't say that almost none of the rise is natural, when some of it is indeed coming from feedback mechanisms resulting from a warming planet. But still, the fact remains that the great bulk of the rise is indeed the result of human activities.



I just said that we don't expect CO2 to share a perfect 1 to 1 correlation with temps at all times because of other climate forcings. That isn't ignoring periods when correlation is perfect, that's explaining why they're there.



Ok.No-one is arguing that there is no anthrpogenic CO2. Of course there is, and if by "great bulk" you mean aproximately half... I'll cede the point. That however does nothibg to prove that the CO2 is warming anything. And a computer model pogrammed with an assumption that it does doesn't prove anything either, except that computer models will follow the assumptions they are programmed with.

[Lee Kington]

I don't know what you're trying to show with it. There was indeed an obvious cooling trend in the Arctic for the past 2000 years. The paper doesn't say that the trend was uninterrupted. No the release does not 'say' it, it insinuates it and that is what I said.

This comment...
The decade from 1999 to 2008 was the warmest in the last 200 decades and corresponds with a continuing buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, said lead author Darrell Kaufman of Northern Arizona University. “Scientists have known for a while that the current period of warming was preceded by a long-term cooling trend, said Kaufman. “But our reconstruction quantifies the cooling with greater certainty than ever before.”

Is fully disingenuous. GISP data demonstrates the claim to be false.

[B' en Natuf]

Those correlations are neither vague nor loose. They're clear as crystal. I agree though that correlation doesn't prove causation. However, the fact that the rise in CO2 is undoubtedly the result of the combustion of fossil fuels does indeed prove causation. Unless, there's something other than humans burning fossil fuels.



I didn't know it was directed at me.

I don't know what you're trying to show with it. There was indeed an obvious cooling trend in the Arctic for the past 2000 years. The paper doesn't say that the trend was uninterrupted.If your going to make time based trend comparisons then you need to include the entire holocene epoch not just the periods of time that support your theory. In terms of the entire holocene epoch, its warm, but not particularly unusually warm. In fact, its below the maximums, above the minimums, and only slightly above the mean.

[Alan J]

No-one is arguing that there is no anthrpogenic CO2. Of course there is, and if by "great bulk" you mean aproximately half... I'll cede the point. That however does nothibg to prove that the CO2 is warming anything. And a computer model pogrammed with an assumption that it does doesn't prove anything either, except that computer models will follow the assumptions they are programmed with.

It's significantly more than half, but I guess that's fair enough.

Yes, establishing that humans are responsible for the CO2 rise doesn't prove that CO2 causes warming. Physics does that. Assuming that the laws of physics as we know and love them are correct, it is completely impossible for the CO2 we've put into the atmosphere to not have a warming effect. CO2 is transparent to incoming solar energy and opaque to outgoing terrestrial energy, so introducing it into the atmosphere necessarily reduces the planet's emissivity and necessarily causes warming. There's no ambiguity on this point. You don't need computer models to tell you that. Just plain old physics.

[Alan J]

No the release does not 'say' it, it insinuates it and that is what I said.

This comment...


Is fully disingenuous. GISP data demonstrates the claim to be false.

The bolded portion of your quote doesn't say anything that might insinuate that the cooling trend of the past 2000 years was uninterrupted. And the claim is contradicted by your graph.

[Alan J]

If your going to make time based trend comparisons then you need to include the entire holocene epoch not just the periods of time that support your theory. In terms of the entire holocene epoch, its warm, but not particularly unusually warm. In fact, its below the maximums, above the minimums, and only slightly above the mean.

The study isn't examining the holocene epoch, just the last 2000 years.

[Lee Kington]

And the claim is contradicted by your graph. Thank you. That is what I am saying. The GISP data contradicts the claim that the decade from 1999 to 2008 was the warmest in the last 200 decades.

[Lee Kington]

I am actually surprised that Alan did not jump on the fact that the GISP data graph I posted in post #103 does not show the last 100 years. It is also from slightly south of the Arctic Circle but it is close enough that it should have indicated that same general trends as the 'Arctic'. Anyway to address both of those issues I shall present data of the last 150 years and from an area well within the Arctic.

Note the increase from about 1918 to 1928. I guess that was when CO2 was really starting to kick in and warm the Arctic like crazy. Well to look at that I need to add another attachment so I shall continue with yet another post.

[Lee Kington]

Referring back to the previous post and graph where I stated....
Note the increase from about 1918 to 1928. I guess that was when CO2 was really starting to kick in and warm the Arctic like crazy.

We all are aware and admit that from 1918 to date man has been generating an ever increasing amount of CO2. We all admit that atmospheric CO2 levels are higher today than back then. The study 'release' in question says the Arctic is warming due to that increase in CO2. They went to a small area of the Arctic and found a few pieces of proxy information that supports their claim. Well, that is if you discount all other contributing factors and simply disregard several truths and realities.

Anyway. So with this increase in CO2 the temperature trend in the Arctic is increasing and the bulk of that CO2 is without doubt compounded in quantity from 1918 forward. So what is the temperature trend? It should be, as they claim, skyrocketing right? 1918 is a great start point of AGW types being as how that was a time of lower temps. They like stacking the deck with low start points.

The trend from the same station deep into the Arctic 1918 - 2008...

[Billy_Bob]

Referring back to the previous post and graph where I stated....


We all are aware and admit that from 1918 to date man has been generating an ever increasing amount of CO2. We all admit that atmospheric CO2 levels are higher today than back then. The study 'release' in question says the Arctic is warming due to that increase in CO2. They went to a small area of the Arctic and found a few pieces of proxy information that supports their claim. Well, that is if you discount all other contributing factors and simply disregard several truths and realities.

Anyway. So with this increase in CO2 the temperature trend in the Arctic is increasing and the bulk of that CO2 is without doubt compounded in quantity from 1918 forward. So what is the temperature trend? It should be, as they claim, skyrocketing right? 1918 is a great start point of AGW types being as how that was a time of lower temps. They like stacking the deck with low start points.

The trend from the same station deep into the Arctic 1918 - 2008...

Lovely Cooling at about -.35Deg C

How could we have missed that minor glitch in global warming?

[Lee Kington]

Lovely Cooling at about -.35Deg C

How could we have missed that minor glitch in global warming?

Apparently we have been negligent and not producing enough CO2.

[Billy_Bob]

Apparently we have been negligent and not producing enough CO2.

With the gas coming out of DC I do not think it is a gas problem...

[Lee Kington]

With the gas coming out of DC I do not think it is a gas problem...

Did you see the latest blog entry that Lubos made?

German government's climate protection adviser Hans Joachim Schellnhuber says rich nations need to start paying up for the CO2 they produce.

Yes. Up to €100 billion ($142 billion) annually. If the richest sixth of the world's population were to pay this amount, each person would have to pay €100 per year. The West would give back part of the wealth it has taken from the South in the past centuries and be indebted to countries that are now amongst the poorest in the world. The Reference Frame LINK (http://motls.blogspot.com/)

Not that such things are any surprise to those of us who know that AGW science is nothing but political science intended for such redistribution of wealth.

[Billy_Bob]

Did you see the latest blog entry that Lubos made?

German government's climate protection adviser Hans Joachim Schellnhuber says rich nations need to start paying up for the CO2 they produce.

The Reference Frame LINK (http://motls.blogspot.com/)

Not that such things are any surprise to those of us who know that AGW science is nothing but political science intended for such redistribution of wealth.

UN slug on ice stating everything is melting ( in the middle of a large increase of ice) and perpetual CO2 ramming like in this thread.. Obama is trying to keep things on track to one world organization taxing the hell out of the US... to redistribute it else where... makes me want to reach out and touch someone.... Hard and multiple times....

[Lee Kington]

I thought I should jump around the Arctic a bit so that Greenland would not appear to be cherry picking.... Lets go to Russia....

[Lee Kington]

As long as we are in Russia lets go deeper into the Arctic.

[Billy_Bob]

I thought I should jump around the Arctic a bit so that Greenland would not appear to be cherry picking.... Lets go to Russia....

Wow.. that same -.35Deg C and given the distance between those two points there isn't any real reason to beleive it is a localized event... Now if the South end is close in opposing months then we have global proof of cooling..

[Billy_Bob]

As long as we are in Russia lets go deeper into the Arctic.

Wow... this is kind of fun.... the data is + or -- .10Deg C

which is within the monitoring stations equipments Margin of Error..

[WildRose]

As long as we are in Russia lets go deeper into the Arctic.Umm I'm not climate expert, but I'm seeing nearly an exact repeat of the 46-56 temps, from 98-present.

This simply isn't possible if increasing CO2 levels are responsible for "global warming" since there's been no decrease, in fact a significant increase in CO2 levels IF the data are correct.

I am a scientist by education and by how I was raised. I simply cannot buy into MMGW unless and until some irrefutible data shows a corresponding trend in the two which to date, I've yet to see.

What I do see is that we continue to repeat a roughly 30 year cycle in global temps over the last 120 years or so, and that doesn't even account for the increased accuracy in thermometors over that time period, nor the rather creative changes in how ocean temperatures are taken today vs just fifty years ago.

[Lee Kington]

Well in full honesty there are locations that do show a slight warming.

The study in question used proxy data from a limited area and employed a small number of samples.

They attempted to claim their study proved CO2 was causing problematic warming in the Arctic.

By failing to state that with the 2000 year span covered by their study the are other occasions of "reversal of the long term cooling trend". In a way they lied via omission. With such deception one would expect to find the name of Jones, Mann, Hansen, Briffa, etc connected to the study. Oh wait... at least one of them is. Surprise? Nah.

For the study to even start to be valid they would have to not only mention but also explain the previous Arctic warming periods which occurred during that same 2000 year span, at least the two major ones.

Shorter term changes, cycles noted in the last century in particular, need to be addressed as to cause and how those causes affected the area of the study. Failure to do so means that regardless of the results of the study they don't have a clue as to what they have found, or not found.

The press release is nothing but a piece of political spin, the study itself appears to be nothing but disingenuous garbage.

[WildRose]

Well in full honesty there are locations that do show a slight warming.

The study in question used proxy data from a limited area and employed a small number of samples.

They attempted to claim their study proved CO2 was causing problematic warming in the Arctic.

By failing to state that with the 2000 year span covered by their study the are other occasions of "reversal of the long term cooling trend". In a way they lied via omission. With such deception one would expect to find the name of Jones, Mann, Hansen, Briffa, etc connected to the study. Oh wait... at least one of them is. Surprise? Nah.

For the study to even start to be valid they would have to not only mention but also explain the previous Arctic warming periods which occurred during that same 2000 year span, at least the two major ones.

Shorter term changes, cycles noted in the last century in particular, need to be addressed as to cause and how those causes affected the area of the study. Failure to do so means that regardless of the results of the study they don't have a clue as to what they have found, or not found.

The press release is nothing but a piece of political spin, the study itself appears to be nothing but disingenuous garbage.Well Lee that's where I have a problem. If rising CO2 levels directly cause an increase in global temperatures, then the trend would have to be constantly upward at a corresponding rate.

We would not be able to be seeing repeats of previous documented patterns on a regular basis, and that's exactly what we see.

The global warming panic mongers never miss an attempt to let us know when there's a "record breaking day" anywhere in the US, and since we don't have across the board record breaking days, breaking all time records, not cyclic records, then the data simply don't prove the theory.

At least not in my book.

I'm not a drone, and I'm not sitting here with my head in the sand. If the science actually showed that MMGW was real, I'd be just as on board as I am with vaccinating my dogs against rabies, parvo, and other diseases. Science proves conclusively that those vaccinations, side effects and all, are necessary to prevent outbreaks.

"Show me the Science" and I can be convinced easily, but I'm goig to do just as you do and look at it critically. If you find one error in the process or the conclusions of a thesis the entire thesis fails, and so far MMGW is still a complete failure in my book since science shows conclusively that we are experiencing cycles we've experienced before.

[nunyadb]

WR, you forget, the liberals weren't here to see the cycles so they don't believe
that they ever existed. "This would be a lovely planet if only it didn't have people on it."
I think that sometimes liberals forget that they are also people.
Then again, maybe they're not.

[caballus]

Cow farts.

[Lee Kington]

By failing to state that with the 2000 year span covered by their study the are other occasions of "reversal of the long term cooling trend". In a way they lied via omission. With such deception one would expect to find the name of Jones, Mann, Hansen, Briffa, etc connected to the study. Oh wait... at least one of them is. Surprise? Nah.


A follow up to the above quote....

Kaufman and Upside-Down Mann
by Steve McIntyre on September 3rd, 2009

Kaufman et al (2009), published at 2 pm today, is a multiproxy study involving the following regular Team authors: Bradley, Briffa (the AR4 millennial reconstruction lead author), Overpeck, Caspar Ammann, David Schneider (of Steig et al 2009), Bradley as well as Otto-Bleisner (Ammann's supervisor and conflicted NAS Panel member) and "JOPL-SI authors" who are various contributors of sediment series.

One of the few proxy data contributors not listed as a coauthor is Mia Tiljander, whose data was used upside down in Mann et al 2008. Amusingly, the Kaufman Team perpetuates Mann's upside down use of the Tiljander proxy, though they at least truncate the huge blade (resuling from modern sediments from bridge-building and farming.) LINK (http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6932)

[Alan J]

Thank you. That is what I am saying. The GISP data contradicts the claim that the decade from 1999 to 2008 was the warmest in the last 200 decades.

Typo. Obviously.

[Alan J]

I am actually surprised that Alan did not jump on the fact that the GISP data graph I posted in post #103 does not show the last 100 years. It is also from slightly south of the Arctic Circle but it is close enough that it should have indicated that same general trends as the 'Arctic'. Anyway to address both of those issues I shall present data of the last 150 years and from an area well within the Arctic.

The fact wasn't lost on me. It just wasn't relevant to anything you'd said yet.

[Alan J]

Referring back to the previous post and graph where I stated....


We all are aware and admit that from 1918 to date man has been generating an ever increasing amount of CO2. We all admit that atmospheric CO2 levels are higher today than back then. The study 'release' in question says the Arctic is warming due to that increase in CO2. They went to a small area of the Arctic and found a few pieces of proxy information that supports their claim. Well, that is if you discount all other contributing factors and simply disregard several truths and realities.

Anyway. So with this increase in CO2 the temperature trend in the Arctic is increasing and the bulk of that CO2 is without doubt compounded in quantity from 1918 forward. So what is the temperature trend? It should be, as they claim, skyrocketing right? 1918 is a great start point of AGW types being as how that was a time of lower temps. They like stacking the deck with low start points.

The trend from the same station deep into the Arctic 1918 - 2008...

You're looking at data from a single station, you're ignoring most of the entire area examined in the study. And you've specifically selected a station you know shows what you want it to show. A more perfect example of cherry picking you'd be hard pressed to find.

[Alan J]

I thought I should jump around the Arctic a bit so that Greenland would not appear to be cherry picking.... Lets go to Russia....

You're still cherry picking. You've just found another graph from another single station that shows what you want it to show. You're ignoring all of the data that doesn't support your preconceived conclusion.

What's surprising about this is that you fully realize that what you're doing is cherry picking, and you're trying to hide the fact... with more cherry picking.

[Billy_Bob]

You're looking at data from a single station, you're ignoring most of the entire area examined in the study. And you've specifically selected a station you know shows what you want it to show. A more perfect example of cherry picking you'd be hard pressed to find.

Just look at any work with Mann or Hansen's names attached...it is far worse than what lee is doing.. Lee is using actual data....those fools manufacture data to get their conclusions..

[Billy_Bob]

You're still cherry picking. You've just found another graph from another single station that shows what you want it to show. You're ignoring all of the data that doesn't support your preconceived conclusion.

What's surprising about this is that you fully realize that what you're doing is cherry picking, and you're trying to hide the fact... with more cherry picking.

Look whos talking....

[Alan J]

Just look at any work with Mann or Hansen's names attached...it is far worse than what lee is doing.. Lee is using actual data....those fools manufacture data to get their conclusions..

Untrue and irrelevant to the fact that Lee's argument is invalid.

[Alan J]

Look whos talking....

... It's me, the handsome devil who's not cherry picking...

[ThinkingMan]

You're still cherry picking. You've just found another graph from another single station that shows what you want it to show. You're ignoring all of the data that doesn't support your preconceived conclusion.

What's surprising about this is that you fully realize that what you're doing is cherry picking, and you're trying to hide the fact... with more cherry picking.

Vs. using bad/false data or flawed models which seem to somehow gain more of a "consensus."

[Alan J]

Vs. using bad/false data or flawed models which seem to somehow gain more of a "consensus."

I'm not using bad/false data and models, but if I were, it wouldn't make Lee's argument any less fallacious.

[Samm]

You're still cherry picking. You've just found another graph from another single station that shows what you want it to show. You're ignoring all of the data that doesn't support your preconceived conclusion.

What's surprising about this is that you fully realize that what you're doing is cherry picking, and you're trying to hide the fact... with more cherry picking.

I'm sorry... I must have missed the graphs of weather station data that you posted showing significant warming in the Arctic... :rolleyes:

At least Lee has posted real data... not just some blanket general statement that the Arctic is warming or some study that extrapolated temperatures derived from studying sediments from one small unique area and applied them to the entire Arctic. Come on Alan, you can do better than to play the "cherry picking" card, particularly when you have not provide anything to counter Lee's evidence.

[Dragon1963]

So tell me where all the extra CO2 came from back when the Norsemen found Greenland? Or for that matter, in the other warmer than normal epochs before the industrial revolution came along?
If I recall correctly back then Greenland was a decent place to live when the Norse came across it and remained so for about 150-200 years.
Seems to me the AWG pushers don't want to deal with "minor" facts like that.

[Billy_Bob]

So tell me where all the extra CO2 came from back when the Norsemen found Greenland? Or for that matter, in the other warmer than normal epochs before the industrial revolution came along?
If I recall correctly back then Greenland was a decent place to live when the Norse came across it and remained so for about 150-200 years.
Seems to me the AWG pushers don't want to deal with "minor" facts like that.

It was a magic CO2 spouting Dragon.....:razz: :)):))

[Dragon1963]

It was a magic CO2 spouting Dragon.....:razz: :)):))

:lol:
Dragons are carbon neutral.

[Charlie A]

The study dealt with artic warming, global warming and the evidence is the subject of thousands of other volumes.
It was my mistake to suggest in the title I wanted to hear your opinion on global warming.

If you didn't want to hear other peoples' opinions on global warming you should start your own blog and not allow comments instead of starting a thread on a generally conservative forum.

I don't know what proportion of climate change is due to atmospheric pollutants and what is due to solar activity. I do know that large cities tend to create microclimates that are often several degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside, but that may be due in large part to reduced albedo thanks to asphalt and tar roofs, as opposed to local pollutants. When you're looking at NYC from an airplane, you can clearly see the dome of brown atmospheric gook, and NYC has clean air for a city it's size due to prevailing winds and the exchange of heavy industry for services industries in the past 50 years.

I do know that comprehensive solutions to both man made and natural climate change are not being seriously addressed. The alarmists seem to want to tax climate change away and the deniers seem to want to wish it away (being a cynic when it comes to bureaucracies I side with the deniers - increasing taxes will only make the situation worse because then a real solution would not be in the best economic and political interests of the governments doing the taxing). The only real solutions involve a number of immense engineering projects to:

1) change the global albedo (assuming albedo is a major culprit)
2) massive reforestation and reclamation of deserts (assuming CO2 is a major culprit)
3) building orbital solar mirrors and shades (assuming solar activity is a major culprit)
4) solar powered refrigeration technology (i.e. a laser pointed into space) at the poles and other hot spots

#3 is my favorite because it lets you deal with both warming and cooling trends, and can be used to moderate extreme weather (once we really get chaos math under control as it were). Of course solar shades and mirrors could be used as terrible weapons, so more than one country would have to control the systems. #1 and #2 require intense international political cooperation and would probably not be practical due to the fact that behavior would have to be controlled by government fiat (that always works so well). #4 would be fixed in place and require a great deal of real estate.

All of these projects would probably be considered prohibitively expensive and denounced by both sides. However, at least with #3, the advantage is that once a system is in place, I suggest that it wouldn't cost nearly as much to run as it would to tax economies over the long term and modify behavior and limit economic growth, and get the system working at a global level between competing sovereign states. Cheaters are rewarded in a system such as that - they benefit from well-behaved states sacrifices and gain economic advantage over them. It would never be sustainable without a unified global government, and that would be even more monstrous than the most pessimistic warming scenarios.

[Mohawk5]

Boring!!!

[RETXED]

There is no ideal absolute temperature of course, but there is an ideal tempurature to sustain life as we now know it.



So wait a second....... I thought this was about "Saving the Planet"?

Now it is about saving your own ass?

:think:

[Alan J]

I'm sorry... I must have missed the graphs of weather station data that you posted showing significant warming in the Arctic... :rolleyes:


Voilà. (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/yes-virginia-the-arctic-is-warming-fast/)

At least Lee has posted real data... not just some blanket general statement that the Arctic is warming or some study that extrapolated temperatures derived from studying sediments from one small unique area and applied them to the entire Arctic. Come on Alan, you can do better than to play the "cherry picking" card, particularly when you have not provide anything to counter Lee's evidence.

I noted that Lee's data were cherry picked. That's all the countering I needed to do.

[Billy_Bob]

Voilà. (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/yes-virginia-the-arctic-is-warming-fast/)



I noted that Lee's data were cherry picked. That's all the countering I needed to do.

Ok for you but not ok for anyone else...:think::think:

I would trust Lees facts than the ones used by those so called scientists

[Alan J]

Ok for you but not ok for anyone else...:think::think:

When an argument contains, or is based on, a fallacy, it is invalid. All that a person who wants to refute that argument needs to do is point out that it is fallacious.

I would trust Lees facts than the ones used by those so called scientists

If you truly think that cherry picking is a valid form of argumentation, more power to you. Nobody who understands anything about logic is going to agree with you, though.

[Samm]

Voilà. (http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/yes-virginia-the-arctic-is-warming-fast/)
Can you identify where in the Arctic those temperature data came from? You will also note that the increase both in summer and winter is since the mid 70s... the same point at which the land temperature in Alaska jumped ~3 F due to the shift of the PDO from negative to positive. I suspect those graphs represent that same cyclic phenomenon since the incremental increase is the same. Since the PDO has reversed once again, it is likely that the trend your link suggests will reverse. That is exactly what Lee and I have been trying to tell you all along.

I noted that Lee's data were cherry picked. That's all the countering I needed to do.
Lee provided you with actual temperature data (read off of a thermometer, not extrapolated from some sediment or tree ring data) taken over many years at several fixed locations within the Arctic. There are very few such data sites to present; Lee gave you a good sampling. If you want to back up your charge of cherry picking feel free to post the data fromall of the Arctic weather stations. Otherwise I think you owe him an apology.

[Lee Kington]

Ok.... the study claims that due to orbital variations the climate should have continued a 2000 year long cooling trend and instead has warmed over the last 150 years. I have already 'questioned' the cherry picking and disingenuous presentation regarding the 'cooling trend'. I have also 'questioned' their implication that the study accurately represents THE ARCTIC. So lets move on from that. Lets look at the claim that the climate is super sensitive to orbital change, that a 150 year span is indicative of CO2 causing problems, blaa, blaa, blaa.

How well does the Arctic historically respond to changes in the earths orbit?

How closely does historic temperature data correlate with orbital change?

From 5 million years of orbit configuration data I created graphs of Eccentricity, Obliquity, Precession, and even Solar Insolation (at 65N for July).

[Lee Kington]

Down dirty, quick and easy I overlaid the last 11,000 years of Earth's Eccentricity of Orbit over 10,500 years of GISP temperature data.

[Lee Kington]

Then, again down & dirty, quick and easy I overlaid the last 11,000 years of Earth's Precession of Orbit over 10,500 years of GISP temperature data.

[Lee Kington]

And of course I overlaid the last 11,000 years of Earth's Obliquity over 10,500 years of GISP temperature data.

[Lee Kington]

And finally I overlaid the last 11,000 years of Solar Insolation at 65N over 10,500 years of GISP temperature data.

[nunyadb]

He won't read it Lee.
While I and others appreciate the work that you put into this,
it's very much like trying to talk a glacier into not scraping gravel.

[Charlie A]

And finally I overlaid the last 11,000 years of Solar Insolation at 65N over 10,500 years of GISP temperature data.

There's no correlation?

[Lee Kington]

There's no correlation?

I leave that for the reader to determine on their own. I have some work to do with what I just presented and then I will do an extension to it.

[Billy_Bob]

And of course I overlaid the last 11,000 years of Earth's Obliquity over 10,500 years of GISP temperature data.

Are we reaching Apex of the obligatory orbit? if we are the earths magnetic fields should strengthen and a drop in temp should intensify as the atmosphere thickens again..

[B' en Natuf]

If you truly think that cherry picking is a valid form of argumentation, more power to you. Nobody who understands anything about logic is going to agree with you, though.Meanwhile, back t the ranch.

If we just look at the last 150 years of data...

OK, how about the last 900 years

last 2000 years

Has it dawned on you that they always want to only look at the data that does not contain the holocene maximums? Has it dawned on you that they did everything they could (including fraud) to make the medivel warm period disapear so that their data would stand up? Facts are what they are. The holocene epoch has lasted now for around 11 or 12K years and for most of that 11 or 12K years the earth has been as warm or warmer than it is today. During those periods man experienced his "golden ages"

10K or so years ago when civilization first appeard in the levant it was warmer than it is today and had been for about 2K years. The warm and wet climate allowed primitive cultivation that a cooler dryer one would not. That period lasted aproximately 5K years and culminated wit the rise of babylon.

Then it got cold and things got more dicy. Civilizations rose and fell as they fought over ever more scarce resources in a cooling climate.

4K or so years ago it got warmer again for about 2K years and civilization once more flourished culminating in the rise of the Roman Empire

Then it got cold again and things got dicier.

around 1100 years ago it once agigot warm and lasted for about 600 years culminating in what we generally call the renaisance

Then it got cold and things got dicey again.

Now its getting warmer again (although we are still not quite as warm as either of the previous periods.

It has been as warm or warmer than it is today for more than 7500 (probobly closer to 8K) of the last 12K years.

Incidently, interglatial epochs usually last about 12K years. Which oddly enough (I believe) is approximately how long it takes for the earth moon and sun to make one circuit on the Mayan long calander and align themselves with the center of the galaxy. (12/21/12)

[GregMartin]

Take a gander at Figure 3 in particular, the longest record ever published.
Note the scale.

Now put the same data on a graph that contains the average DAILY variation in temperature.

Your flat lines mean SQUAT.

[GregMartin]

For example, here's that infamous "hockey stick" curve set to the scale that would be required to map the daily variation from mean temperature.

http://forums.hannity.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=103881&d=1236103521

[B' en Natuf]

And finally I overlaid the last 11,000 years of Solar Insolation at 65N over 10,500 years of GISP temperature data.The ecentricity and solar insolation graphs appear to correlate. Also, on a first look (without plotting data points and doing any calibration) it appears as though a mean of the first three would pretty much sink with the overall trend in temp. It would be interesting if we had a gauge to ascertain solar activity for the whole period like sunspots and see what that did both with raw temp data and included as additional data computed into a mean of the others.

[Alan J]

Can you identify where in the Arctic those temperature data came from?

No, but I would assume that they're from everywhere north of 80 degrees latitude. Here's where they came from:

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl

You can poke around a bit there if you'd like.

You will also note that the increase both in summer and winter is since the mid 70s... the same point at which the land temperature in Alaska jumped ~3 F due to the shift of the PDO from negative to positive. I suspect those graphs represent that same cyclic phenomenon since the incremental increase is the same. Since the PDO has reversed once again, it is likely that the trend your link suggests will reverse. That is exactly what Lee and I have been trying to tell you all along.

I suspect that they don't and that it won't. The PDO affects temps over the short term, but it has no ability to provide any long term forcing, so it can't possibly reverse the trend of long term warming we're causing.

But that's beside the point anyway. Lee and Watts aren't arguing that something other than CO2 is causing the Arctic to warm. They're arguing that the Arctic isn't warming at all. Which is just plain wrong.

Lee provided you with actual temperature data (read off of a thermometer, not extrapolated from some sediment or tree ring data) taken over many years at several fixed locations within the Arctic. There are very few such data sites to present; Lee gave you a good sampling. If you want to back up your charge of cherry picking feel free to post the data fromall of the Arctic weather stations. Otherwise I think you owe him an apology.

Lee didn't give a good sampling though, that's the point. He gave a carefully hand picked sampling chosen specifically because it confirmed his preconceived conclusion. And I already did post data covering the entire Arctic. But even if I hadn't, it wouldn't validate Lee's cherry picking, and certainly wouldn't warrant an apology.

[Alan J]

He won't read it Lee.
While I and others appreciate the work that you put into this,
it's very much like trying to talk a glacier into not scraping gravel.

I'f I'm the he you're talking about, I did indeed read it. I have no idea what Lee thinks he's showing though.

[Lee Kington]

I suspect that they don't and that it won't. The PDO affects temps over the short term, but it has no ability to provide any long term forcing, so it can't possibly reverse the trend of long term warming we're causing.

The original statement was:The research team assembled high-resolution records of climate for the past 2,000 years and found that the cooling trend reversed in the mid-1990s. That certainly would have and does open the door to shorter term influences.

Having been made fools of they changed it to:
“The research team assembled high-resolution records of climate for the past 2,000 years and found that the cooling trend reversed in the 20th century.” Which is better but still disingenuous.

But that's beside the point anyway. Lee and Watts aren't arguing that something other than CO2 is causing the Arctic to warm. They're arguing that the Arctic isn't warming at all. Which is just plain wrong. Actually I am not. I believe that most readers here realize that.

Lee didn't give a good sampling though, that's the point. He gave a carefully hand picked sampling chosen specifically because it confirmed his preconceived conclusion. You cannot make the 'cherry picking' statement in regards to my selection. I was quite clear in disclosing that some sites reflected warming... I covered that in post #164... Well in full honesty there are locations that do show a slight warming.

The study in question used proxy data from a limited area and employed a small number of samples.

[Lee Kington]

Are we reaching Apex of the obligatory orbit?

Obliquity ranges from 22.1° to 24.5° over about a 38 - 42,000 year period for a full cycle (high to low and back to high. Here is a graph of Obliquity for the past 42 Kyr. We are currently at about 23.44° and decreasing.

[Alan J]

The original statement was: That certainly would have and does open the door to shorter term influences.

Having been made fools of they changed it to:
Which is better but still disingenuous.

When did they change that? It's pretty difficult to change a study's abstract once it's been published. Also, neither statement means that the Arctic didn't start warming until the 90's.

Actually I am not. I believe that most readers here realize that.

That's true, you haven't said you think the Arctic isn't warming. Watts has though. Very explicitly. And you've been trying, for reasons unknown, to defend his saying that.

You cannot make the 'cherry picking' statement in regards to my selection. I was quite clear in disclosing that some sites reflected warming... I covered that in post #164...

Acknowledging that you were cherry picking doesn't change the fact that you were cherry picking.

[Lee Kington]

Acknowledging that you were cherry picking doesn't change the fact that you were cherry picking.

Will you write to Kaufman, Briffa, et al and admonish them for cherry-picking as well? After all... that was in a way my point.

[Matthewobamahater]

In you global warmers won't admit that you cherry pick? You look at record hot events and point towards your god global warming. Lee shown many stations throughout the Arctic and admitted that some where in fact warming...Could be very ocean currents. On the other hand antarctica has had increase sea ice and even to the point where it has set records the past few years. But then if we said that was caused by even a change in ocean currents you would scream how we are cherry picking. I say look at the overall global temperature if we are dealing with a global climate change, and that shows a very stable and none changing climate the last decade,,,which is unnormal in earth's history and not likely to last very long.

I will admit that we warmed in the 20th century and came out of a little ice age. To tell you the truth we have been warming for about 200 years out of it. Caused by solar cycle or even a slight increase in co2...Even Lee has pointed out that co2 causes some warming.

[Lee Kington]

When did they change that? It's pretty difficult to change a study's abstract once it's been published. That was in the press release not necessarily in the paper. Perhaps they embellished the press release, since it was public and the paper is not hence disparity hidden, for greater shock and awe effect. AGW alarmist up to their standard propaganda.

[Alan J]

Will you write to Kaufman, Briffa, et al and admonish them for cherry-picking as well? After all... that was in a way my point.

I imagine it was...

[Lee Kington]

That's true, you haven't said you think the Arctic isn't warming. Watts has though. Very explicitly. And you've been trying, for reasons unknown, to defend his saying that. Sans one or two posts of third hand nature I have not mentioned Anthony's position. He is a big boy and able to defend himself. If you want to criticize him I suggest you do so on his site. If you want your 'input' to be considered credible I suggest doing so using your full and proper name.

[Lee Kington]

Just to 'add' some "Cherry Picking". John Daly is no longer with us, however, much of his work still is. The attached image is from his work.

If you want greater detail, etc. an interactive version can be found here...
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/Arctic.htm

[Samm]

No, but I would assume that they're from everywhere north of 80 degrees latitude. Here's where they came from:

http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl

You can poke around a bit there if you'd like.
That site is pretty worthless as far as this discussion is concerned. A person could spend days in there and not find what they are looking for.

But I am curious... why would you assume that it was from everywhere north of 80 degrees latitude? Have you any idea what weather stations on what land masses exist above 80 degrees north?

I suspect that they don't and that it won't. The PDO affects temps over the short term, but it has no ability to provide any long term forcing, so it can't possibly reverse the trend of long term warming we're causing.

The PDO affects temperatures for about 30 years... it has been warming Alaska and other parts of the western Arctic from 1977 to 2008... exactly the same period and length of time that the graphs you linked show warming.

But that's beside the point anyway. Lee and Watts aren't arguing that something other than CO2 is causing the Arctic to warm. They're arguing that the Arctic isn't warming at all. Which is just plain wrong. And for good reason... there is data which suggests that the Arctic is no longer warming.

Lee didn't give a good sampling though, that's the point. He gave a carefully hand picked sampling chosen specifically because it confirmed his preconceived conclusion. And I already did post data covering the entire Arctic. But even if I hadn't, it wouldn't validate Lee's cherry picking, and certainly wouldn't warrant an apology.

What would be a good sampling? Have you any idea how many weather data sites have been in operation on the ground throughout the Arctic for the last 50 years or more? And how many are located within the area of the ocean? Yes, you provided a temperature graph for the Arctic, but it was an average compiled from locations not specified. For all we know from the lack of documentation, it was from only one site, making it the ultimate picked cherry.

[Lee Kington]

Hey Billy....

I know that you will find this of interest......

Solar wind surprise: “This discovery is like finding it got hotter when the sun went down,”
10 09 2009

This gives a whole new meaning to “Total Solar Irradiance”. Instead of TSI, perhaps we should call the energy transfer that comes from the sun to the earth TSE for “Total Solar Energy” so that it includes the solar wind, the geomagnetics, and other yet undiscovered linkages. LINK (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/solar-wind-suprise-this-discovery-is-like-finding-it-got-hotter-when-the-sun-went-down/)

“When the interplanetary magnetic field is pointing northward, there is not much happening, but when the interplanetary magnetic field is southward, the flow speeds in the polar regions of the ionosphere are strong. You see much stronger convection. That is what we expect,” Lyons said. “We looked carefully at the data, and said, ‘Wait a minute! There are times when the field is northward and there are strong flows in the dayside polar ionosphere.’”

Amazing what can be learned after science already knows everything.

[Alan J]

Sans one or two posts of third hand nature I have not mentioned Anthony's position. He is a big boy and able to defend himself. If you want to criticize him I suggest you do so on his site. If you want your 'input' to be considered credible I suggest doing so using your full and proper name.

Nah, there's no reason to bother. Watts already knows why he's wrong. He's been shown it countless times. He just doesn't care. He's interested in supporting his preconceptions, not doing science.

[Lee Kington]

Nah, there's no reason to bother. Watts already knows why he's wrong. He's been shown it countless times. He just doesn't care. He's interested in supporting his preconceptions, not doing science.


Sounds more like you are talking about Tamino and Gavin, etc. They have a tendency to ignore and launch ad-hominem attacks against any who do not bow before them and blindly accept their propaganda. I will note that you are unable to address Watts in a professional manner and / or unwilling to go on record with your actual full name.

SCORE:

Watts = 2
Alan J = 0

[Alan J]

But I am curious... why would you assume that it was from everywhere north of 80 degrees latitude? Have you any idea what weather stations on what land masses exist above 80 degrees north?

Because Tamino said he was using surface temperature data for north of 80 degrees lat. I took that to mean it was a data set including all of the surface stations in the Arctic.

The PDO affects temperatures for about 30 years... it has been warming Alaska and other parts of the western Arctic from 1977 to 2008... exactly the same period and length of time that the graphs you linked show warming.

The fact the PDO is in a warm phase and the fact that the Arctic has been warming doesn't mean that the PDO is causing the warming. What analysis have you done other than that simple observation to conclude such a thing?

And for good reason... there is data which suggests that the Arctic is no longer warming.

Again, Watts is saying that the Arctic hasn't shown any signs of warming since at least 1958. He isn't saying that the Arctic hasn't shown signs of warming for two years, a year, a month, or some other short time period (although I'm sure he's said so many times in the past). He is terrifically wrong about that.

What would be a good sampling? Have you any idea how many weather data sites have been in operation on the ground throughout the Arctic for the last 50 years or more? And how many are located within the area of the ocean? Yes, you provided a temperature graph for the Arctic, but it was an average compiled from locations not specified. For all we know from the lack of documentation, it was from only one site, making it the ultimate picked cherry.

A good sampling would be a sampling that accurately reflected temperature changes across the entire Arctic. Not changes in a small part of Greenland or Russia.

[Billy_Bob]

Hey Billy....

I know that you will find this of interest......

LINK (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/solar-wind-suprise-this-discovery-is-like-finding-it-got-hotter-when-the-sun-went-down/)



Amazing what can be learned after science already knows everything.
:)):)):clap::clap::clap::clap:

TSE Finally some besides me calls it...and I'm just a wanna be....

[Alan J]

Just to 'add' some "Cherry Picking". John Daly is no longer with us, however, much of his work still is. The attached image is from his work.

If you want greater detail, etc. an interactive version can be found here...
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/Arctic.htm

There's certainly a lot of cherry picking in that link. But that's not all. See here for more details:

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/10/arctic-stations/

[Alan J]

Sounds more like you are talking about Tamino and Gavin, etc. They have a tendency to ignore and launch ad-hominem attacks against any who do not bow before them and blindly accept their propaganda. I will note that you are unable to address Watts in a professional manner and / or unwilling to go on record with your actual full name.

SCORE:

Watts = 2
Alan J = 0

Your scoring is all messed up. I've never professionally addressed Watts, true. But he hasn't professionally addressed me either. So nobody gets a point for that. And, being that i've never directly addressed him, it would be wholly impossible for me to give him my full name (Alan is my actual first name). So no point for Watts there either.

However, I am afraid I'll have to deduct two points from you for falsely giving out victory points.

SCORE:

Watts: 0
Alan: 17
Lee: -2

[Billy_Bob]

Hey Billy....

I know that you will find this of interest......

LINK (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/solar-wind-suprise-this-discovery-is-like-finding-it-got-hotter-when-the-sun-went-down/)



Amazing what can be learned after science already knows everything.

I wonder what a 10% shift would do to the earth?

“The energy of the particles and the fields in the magnetosphere can vary by large amounts. It can be 10 times higher or 10 times lower from day to day, even from half-hour to half-hour. These are huge variations in particle intensities, magnetic field strength and electric field strength,” Lyons said.

[Billy_Bob]

Your scoring is all messed up. I've never professionally addressed Watts, true. But he hasn't professionally addressed me either. So nobody gets a point for that. And, being that i've never directly addressed him, it would be wholly impossible for me to give him my full name (Alan is my actual first name). So no point for Watts there either.

However, I am afraid I'll have to deduct two points from you for falsely giving out victory points.

SCORE:

Watts: 0
Alan: 17
Lee: -2

:whistle:

TIME OUT.....Flag on the Play.....Penalty to AJ

Score checked Watts 2 : AJ 0 : Lee 100

[Alan J]

:whistle:

TIME OUT.....Flag on the Play.....Penalty to AJ

Score checked Watts 2 : AJ 0 : Lee 100

Now Billy, you know you aren't an authorized referee. I have to take away 18 victory points for impersonating an official.


Watts: 0
Alan: 42
Lee: -2
Billy: -17

[Samm]

Because Tamino said he was using surface temperature data for north of 80 degrees lat. I took that to mean it was a data set including all of the surface stations in the Arctic.

Look at the map... there is only a smattering of land north of 80 degrees. Even if the data is from every surface station above that latitude, it represents a very small area of the Arctic. The Arctic extends at minimum to the tree line, but in general to 66.5 degrees north.

The fact the PDO is in a warm phase and the fact that the Arctic has been warming doesn't mean that the PDO is causing the warming. What analysis have you done other than that simple observation to conclude such a thing?
I said "Alaska and the western Arctic... "

Again, Watts is saying that the Arctic hasn't shown any signs of warming since at least 1958. He isn't saying that the Arctic hasn't shown signs of warming for two years, a year, a month, or some other short time period (although I'm sure he's said so many times in the past). He is terrifically wrong about that.
Maybe... maybe not. In 1958 the Arctic was still "feeling" the effects of the warm 30s and 40s. If he had said "since 1976" I would agree he was wrong.

A good sampling would be a sampling that accurately reflected temperature changes across the entire Arctic. Not changes in a small part of Greenland or Russia.
Which is exactly why I said your sampling was also selective. Temperatures obtained only from land areas above 80 latitude are very non-representative.

[Billy_Bob]

Now Billy, you know you aren't an authorized referee. I have to take away 18 victory points for impersonating an official.


Watts: 0
Alan: 42
Lee: -2
Billy: -17

Referee's don't need points.....YOU LOSE! Ejection for arm baring......

[Billy_Bob]

This is simaler to what were doing..

"Heejeong separated the data into when the solar wind was fluctuating a lot and when it was fluctuating a little," he added. "When the interplanetary magnetic field fluctuations are low, she saw the pattern everyone knows, but when she analyzed the pattern when the interplanetary magnetic field was fluctuating strongly, that pattern completely disappeared. Instead, the strength of the flows depended on the strength of the fluctuations.

The Solar wind has a huge roll in planetary temp and climate... not just a passing fancy...

And Again CO2 loses.... it's insignificance demonstrated by Dr Lyons work...

Ive got some reading to complete... this guy has a whole different approach to what it is we are doing... very interesting stuff!

Thanks!!!

[Alan J]

Look at the map... there is only a smattering of land north of 80 degrees. Even if the data is from every surface station above that latitude, it represents a very small area of the Arctic. The Arctic extends at minimum to the tree line, but in general to 66.5 degrees north.

Tamino is using the stations north of 80 degrees lat because that is what Watts claims has shown no signs of warming.


I said "Alaska and the western Arctic... "

I know that. I thought you meant to suggest that the PDO might be responsible for the warming trend Tamino showed.

Maybe... maybe not. In 1958 the Arctic was still "feeling" the effects of the warm 30s and 40s. If he had said "since 1976" I would agree he was wrong.

So... You do agree with Watts that the Arctic hasn't warmed since 1958? Despite Tamino proving that he was wrong?

Which is exactly why I said your sampling was also selective. Temperatures obtained only from land areas above 80 latitude are very non-representative.

They're representative of the area Watts claims to have shown no signs of warming.

[Alan J]

Referee's don't need points.....YOU LOSE! Ejection for arm baring......

13 points deducted for back talk. Keep it up, mister, and I might just throw out a warning.

[Samm]

Tamino is using the stations north of 80 degrees lat because that is what Watts claims has shown no signs of warming.
Then you should have said that in the first place. Most of the Arctic lies south of 80 degrees, and north of that line there are very few data points so either way, it does not represent the Arctic.

I know that. I thought you meant to suggest that the PDO might be responsible for the warming trend Tamino showed.
If you knew that, why would you think I meant something else? :eh:

So... You do agree with Watts that the Arctic hasn't warmed since 1958? Despite Tamino proving that he was wrong?
Are you completely unable to comprehend the written word? I did not agree with that statement; I said "maybe... maybe not." The temperature data in the Arctic going back to 1958 is skimpy at best and as you say, Watts limited himself to analyzing temperature change north of 80 degrees. The Arctic very well could have cooled since 1958 even though it has warmed somewhat since 1979.

They're representative of the area Watts claims to have shown no signs of warming.

Fine, but temperatures obtained only from land areas above 80 latitude are very non-representative of the Arctic as a whole. The vast majority of the Arctic is excluded by that metric. You can win your point with that sort of exclusivity, but you will not win the debate, because your point is... pointless.

[Alan J]

Then you should have said that in the first place. Most of the Arctic lies south of 80 degrees, and north of that line there are very few data points so either way, it does not represent the Arctic.

I thought that would be obvious from reading Watts' and Tamino's articles.

If you knew that, why would you think I meant something else? :eh:

Because I couldn't think of any other reason why it would be relevant to our discussion.

Are you completely unable to comprehend the written word? I did not agree with that statement; I said "maybe... maybe not." The temperature data in the Arctic going back to 1958 is skimpy at best and as you say, Watts limited himself to analyzing temperature change north of 80 degrees. The Arctic very well could have cooled since 1958 even though it has warmed somewhat since 1979.

Watts isn't saying that the Arctic has cooled since 1958, despite a warming trend since 1979. He's trying to argue that there have been no signs of warming in the Arctic since at least 1958.

Fine, but temperatures obtained only from land areas above 80 latitude are very non-representative of the Arctic as a whole. The vast majority of the Arctic is excluded by that metric. You can win your point with that sort of exclusivity, but you will not win the debate, because your point is... pointless.

Here ya go, it's an analysis of the entire Arctic. And, surprise, surprise, it's warming.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/arctic-analysis/

[Billy_Bob]

I thought that would be obvious from reading Watts' and Tamino's articles.



Because I couldn't think of any other reason why it would be relevant to our discussion.



Watts isn't saying that the Arctic has cooled since 1958, despite a warming trend since 1979. He's trying to argue that there have been no signs of warming in the Arctic since at least 1958.



Here ya go, it's an analysis of the entire Arctic. And, surprise, surprise, it's warming.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/11/arctic-analysis/

BULL ****!

I retrieved surface temperature data for the far north from GISS, selecting stations according to these criteria:

* Latitude 60N or greater.
* At least 30 years of data.
* At least some data since the year 2000.

with such a narrow data set of course its going to show warming... 34 of the last 45 have been warming and now its been cooling for 5 or so...

[Alan J]

BULL ****!


with such a narrow data set of course its going to show warming... 34 of the last 45 have been warming and now its been cooling for 5 or so...

Ok, so... the data are going to show warming... because there's been warming. Gotcha. Thanks for agreeing with me. I knew you'd come round.

[Billy_Bob]

Ok, so... the data are going to show warming... because there's been warming. Gotcha. Thanks for agreeing with me. I knew you'd come round.

there you go again AJ a legend in your own mind...:wall:

[Alan J]

there you go again AJ a legend in your own mind...:wall:

Not just in my own mind. My legendariness is actualized in a real cosmos.

[shannytown]

For the 1% of the population who still think global warming is a left wing conspiracy here is a paper published this week in Science to consider:

http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B6kqlB85LcrPZTNlY2NjNDAtYWE0MC00NmJmL Tk3NjMtZDY5ZTBkNWEyZGJk&hl=en

Take a gander at Figure 3 in particular, the longest record ever published.

...and do your research before you post quotes from some "scientist" who claims there is no global warming. Because in every single case I've ever seen, the guy had either never published in the area or was paid by the oil company or both.


Gee, here's one published this week by NOAA:
NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.

September 10, 2009
The average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/)in Asheville, N.C. August was also below the long-term average. The analysis is based on records dating back to 1895.



http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html

[Alan J]

Gee, here's one published this week by NOAA:
NOAA: Summer Temperature Below Average for U.S.

September 10, 2009
The average June-August 2009 summer temperature for the contiguous United States was below average – the 34th coolest on record, according to a preliminary analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/)in Asheville, N.C. August was also below the long-term average. The analysis is based on records dating back to 1895.



http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2009/20090910_summerstats.html

It might surprise you to learn that there is more to the world than just the US.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/summer-09/

[mechanicon]

Not just in my own mind. My legendariness is actualized in a real cosmos.


...Just another indoctrinated, pseuo-intellectual, "WARMER"......:rolleyes:......

[Billy_Bob]

It might surprise you to learn that there is more to the world than just the US.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/09/13/summer-09/

It might surprise you that the trend is global.... Nice partisan link by the way...

[Alan J]

...Just another indoctrinated, pseuo-intellectual, "WARMER"......:rolleyes:......

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.

[mechanicon]

don't hate me because i'm beautiful.


....:)).........excellent!!!........:))....

[Alan J]

It might surprise you that the trend is global.... Nice partisan link by the way...

Obviously not. This Summer hasn't been especially cool globally. In fact, it's been just the opposite.

[mechanicon]

Your scoring is all messed up. I've never professionally addressed Watts, true. But he hasn't professionally addressed me either. So nobody gets a point for that. And, being that i've never directly addressed him, it would be wholly impossible for me to give him my full name (Alan is my actual first name). So no point for Watts there either.

However, I am afraid I'll have to deduct two points from you for falsely giving out victory points.

SCORE:

Watts: 0
Alan: 17
Lee: -2


....Are all the scientists who disagree with the theory of man-made global warming secretly on the take from the "polluters?"....Recieving money from the "polluters" to skew the results, to advance thier interests?

...If this is a possibility, isn't it ALSO possible that the converse is possible?...

...Or do you honestly believe that the "WARMERS", are above such things???

...HMMMM???...:think::think::think:...

[Alan J]

....Are all the scientists who disagree with the theory of man-made global warming secretly on the take from the "polluters?"....Recieving money from the "polluters" to skew the results, to advance thier interests?

No. I think they're wrong though.

...If this is a possibility, isn't it ALSO possible that the converse is possible?...

...Or do you honestly believe that the "WARMERS", are above such things???

...HMMMM???...:think::think::think:...

I generally don't suspect scientists of fraud unless there's been a damned solid case brought against them. It seems, though, that many on this board like to imagine grand global conspiracies amongst scientists based on no evidence at all.

[Samm]

Don't hate me because I'm beautiful.

He said warmer, not hot. ;)