It’s Not Getting Warmer – Again, Really?

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 9:14 PM GMT on October 17, 2012

Share this Blog
12
+

It’s Not Getting Warmer – Again, Really?

I woke this morning to an email from a friend wanting to know more about an article in the Daily Mail, stating that global warming stopped 16 years ago. This, of course, came as something of a surprise since to my counting there have been more than 330 months since the last month that the globe was below the 20th century average temperature, and the past 12 years have seen most of the warmest temperatures since 1860 (Rood, Just Temperature). So what’s going on?

For my regular readers, I refer back to my piece Form of Argument on how to analyze this news report. I will start there, then I will lay out some of the observational basis for why global warming did not “stop” 16 years ago.

The first accounting of this report that I saw was on the website New American. In their words, “ … The New American forthrightly acknowledges an editorial point of view.” They are owned by the John Birch Society. I make these statements so that you can consider that the information in that article supports a point of view that is stated to support a specific political philosophy. In this New American article it states that the Met Office had quietly released a report and gave this link to that report.

Following that link, one finds this is not actually a “report,” but the previously promised release of the HadCRUT4 data set. From that site, “HadCRUT4 is a gridded dataset of global historical surface temperature anomalies relative to a 1961-1990 reference period.” There are a number of diagnostic figures that are released with the data set. I can find nothing in the Met Office release that claims that global warming has “stopped.”

In the original Daily Mail article it is stated that the Met Office report, “…was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.” Given the online release of data as the fundamental report, this suggests that the Daily Mail reporter is the one responsible for the conclusion that “the world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago …” Any debate that has followed from the release of the HadCRUT4 data set and this interpretation by a reporter seems to have been initiated by the Daily Mail article. The original article then goes on with a series of quotes, that are, in fact, not directly related to release of the data set or to the question of whether or not the Earth has “stopped warming.”

If I return to my piece Form of Argument, the article in the Daily Mail relies on a single data set, which is surface air temperature, and it does not discuss this data set in relation to many other data sets that complete the story about whether or not the planet is warming. The article also works to generate emotional controversy by providing quotes from two scientists who would “not normally be expected to agree,” suggesting “unreliability” of models, using words such as “catastrophists” to characterize scientists who warn of the risks of global warming. Add to this that the article does not seem to be a journalist reporting on a scientific report, but a journalist making a casual point, as if it were science-derived, about a particular data set in a way to support a particular point of view. All told, this article fits all of the criteria of a prejudicial form of argument directed only at making someone believe the person making the argument; it is not seeking knowledge-based understanding.

Now let’s think about the temperature data. I am sure that many people in the land of blog will rise to critical comment on the article in the Daily Mail. Here is how I would quickly frame the argument.

First: Here is the image of the global temperature from the new HadCRUT4 data set. This is the difference of temperature from a 30-year average, where those 30 years are 1961-1990.



Figure 1: Global temperature from the new HadCRUT4 data set. This is the difference of temperature from a 30-year average, where those 30 years are 1961-1990.

Looking at the recent temperature and variability, there is nothing in the recent observations that suggests that the behavior of the temperature data has changed in any significant way. We have the normal amount of bumps and wiggles. (Rood series on Bumps and Wiggles, that last time people were talking about it “not warming.”) If we were to calculate, rigorously, a trend in the entire data set, then it would be strongly upward. If we were to pick, say, 16 year time periods out of the dataset and calculate 16-year trends, we could find just about any “trend” that we might want.

Second: To rely only on surface air temperature does not provide a complete measure of the warming of the Earth (Rood, Just Temperature). Much of the heat goes into the ocean, raising the temperature of the ocean (Rood, Still following the heat). A recent paper in Physics Letters A, entitled “Comment on ‘Ocean heat content and Earthʼs radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts’” by Dana Nuccitelli and others comment on the practice of 1) focusing on interannual variability and 2) focusing on isolated data sets in making statements about whether or not the Earth is warming. The carry away figure from that paper is shown here




Figure 2: Fig. 1. Land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red), 0–700 meter ocean heat content increase (light blue), 700–2000 meter ocean heat content increase (dark blue), and the Land + Ice + Atmosphere heating from 1961 to 2008. (from Comment on ‘Ocean heat content and Earthʼs radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts’) This data for this figure is from NOAA National Oceanographic Data Center. More information on the ocean heat content data can be found here and in Levitus et al. (2012). The figure presented is a difference from an average. In the original paper the averaging period was 1955-2006.


When considering the heat content of the Earth, rather than the surface temperature of the air, there is no evidence that the rate of heating of the Earth has slowed in the past decade. The paper further shows that a focus on short-term variability, as done in The Daily Mail article, brings focus to what is statistically “noise” and leads to spurious artifacts in the determination of recent trends.

These results from Dana Nuccitelli and others are detailed on the web site Skeptical Science. (blog link, paper link ) A key difference between this analysis and reportage in the Daily Mail is the detail of method and the review required for publication in Physics Letters A.

Third: Here is another consideration of the Earth’s climate beyond simply considering the air temperature as representative of “climate.” In the Presidential Debate on October 16, 2012, a question was asked of Governor Romney how he is different from George W. Bush. Part of his answer was how different the times are today than they were a decade ago. The massive loss of sea ice in the northern hemisphere in this decade is another signal of the warming Earth. It is different from any other decade in the HadCRUT4 time series. This melting of ice requires the use of heat from the air and from the ocean. The heating of ice and water means that not all of the heating of the Earth shows up as a signal in the air. A flattening in the air temperature might mean melting of the ice.

Finally: What about the air temperature, has it peaked or flattened out? No. Consistent and persistent readers of blogs on Wunderground.com know that if we look at air temperature, then we see a trend and on top of this trend are up and down fluctuations that are related to weather. We see many types of internal variability – the bumps and wiggles (once again, the link). If we look at the climate as a whole, the oceans, ice, land, and atmosphere, then the atmosphere bounces around a lot more than the oceans and the ice. The atmosphere responds most strongly to the seasonal cycle of the Sun, and the atmosphere responds to small changes in the ocean with big changes. So why do I say that the air temperature has not peaked? Compared to a balanced state, we have an excess of energy at the Earth’s surface (see here). This energy will ultimately lead to warming of the atmosphere, as well as the ocean and ice and land. It is reasonable to expect the air temperature to continue to warm. How long does it take for that warming to appear in the air temperature record? A reasonable expectation is in 10 – 50 years. I fully expect the air temperature for the decade of 2011 to 2020 to be warmer than 2001 to 2010, which was the warmest decade that we have measured (see also Some Jobs for Models and Modelers).

So my answer to my friend: First, If you consider the form of argument and source of information in the Daily Mail article, it raises many warnings that it is not an article intended to give a knowledge-based representation of the heating of the Earth. Second, if you consider data that represent the heating of the Earth, rather than the heating of the air, then there is no evidence that the Earth has ceased to warm.

r

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 88 - 38

Page: 1 | 2Blog Index

88. ericbooth33
1:09 AM GMT on November 05, 2012

storg uper livele low pressure system storg severe thunder storm developing tuesday
Member Since: April 18, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 13
87. muttkat
12:02 PM GMT on October 31, 2012
I have been looking at severe weather in the US and it seems like all kinds of records are being broken pertaining to floods, severe storms etc in the last couple decades. I've read where certain periods of weather, take the Antarctica for example, took 10,000, 1000's of years or more to change. Why would the weather be changing so quickly in such a short amount of time? I just read this Air Force paper called "Owning the Weather by 2025 which states some parts are fictional but various things are true in that report. I hate to sound like a conspiracy theorists but does anybody know why the weather has changed so quickly in such short time?
Member Since: October 31, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
86. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
4:04 AM GMT on October 28, 2012
RickyRood has created a new entry.
85. Ossqss
2:52 AM GMT on October 28, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
This seems to be the Denialist Meme Of The Day. (Or at least meme #2, behind the insane-level screeching that, "There's no way Sandy will be made worse by global warming!!!!!!!!!")

Dr. Mann, of course, received a certificate signed by IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri that formally acknowledged Mann's contribution "...to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC". This is the same certificate sent to every IPCC Lead Author of that 2007 report. Mann has had the certificate framed and hanging in his office since he received it, and he's reproduced it online more than once.

The thing is, the guy behind this whole new smear campaign against Mann is Marc Morano, well-known Koch Brothers do-boy, and one of the principles behind the cowardly "Swift Boating" of John Kerry in 2004. Want to blather on about a "lying tool"? I'll be happy to point you in the right direction.

(You know, it would be absolutely amazing if any denialist ever actually displayed the slightest inkling of critical thinking skills. But that's too much; it's easier to drool at Anthony Watts' feet and hurriedly rush around the internet repeating every word from his discredited mouth.)

FWIW, I hope Dr. Mann sues Morano, as the "Photoshopping" accusation is probably actionable.


The discovery phase would be quite interesting. The same will hold true with Mann's current litigation.

Change is upon us and it will certainly impact the climate of these discussions.

Opinion and rhetoric will no longer count more than fact on an unsettled science or the "way/quality of life" dictation by a very small group of self appointed experts.

I look forward to that IMMINENT hope and change. The silent majority is going to see to that.

It ain't working the way it is and Nothing Else Matters!

For your enjoyment on the way out the door>







Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
84. Neapolitan
12:38 AM GMT on October 28, 2012
Quoting nymore:


I see Michael Mann awarded himself
a Nobel Medal.

You have got to be kidding me, he did not know the difference between a certificate from the IPCC and the Nobel Committee.

What a LYING TOOL.
This seems to be the Denialist Meme Of The Day. (Or at least meme #2, behind the insane-level screeching that, "There's no way Sandy will be made worse by global warming!!!!!!!!!")

Dr. Mann, of course, received a certificate signed by IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri that formally acknowledged Mann's contribution "...to the award of the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC". This is the same certificate sent to every IPCC Lead Author of that 2007 report. Mann has had the certificate framed and hanging in his office since he received it, and he's reproduced it online more than once.

The thing is, the guy behind this whole new smear campaign against Mann is Marc Morano, well-known Koch Brothers do-boy, and one of the principles behind the cowardly "Swift Boating" of John Kerry in 2004. Want to blather on about a "lying tool"? I'll be happy to point you in the right direction.

(You know, it would be absolutely amazing if any denialist ever actually displayed the slightest inkling of critical thinking skills. But that's too much; it's easier to drool at Anthony Watts' feet and hurriedly rush around the internet repeating every word from his discredited mouth.)

FWIW, I hope Dr. Mann sues Morano, as the "Photoshopping" accusation is probably actionable.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13299
83. nymore
10:42 PM GMT on October 27, 2012


I see Michael Mann awarded himself
a Nobel Medal.

You have got to be kidding me, he did not know the difference between a certificate from the IPCC and the Nobel Committee.

What a LYING TOOL.
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
82. Neapolitan
10:05 PM GMT on October 27, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


Yep, that CO2 has had a direct impact on disaster style weather events eh?


Here is some data, not opinion, for you.

Link

Like I've said, that 3.4 million tonnes plus of excess CO2 we're pumping into the atmosphere each and every day has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the weather. The denialist shot-caller Anthony Watts has conclusively proven as much. :\

(Watts' "graphjam"--aka "pictorial gish gallop"--may sway the minds of the mindless, but anyone familiar with statistics can see the same Watts-ian BS to which we've all become accustomed: a heat wave index graph that stops in 2008; a pair of charts that track not hurricane activity but US hurricane landfalls, as though that has some bearing on overall activity; a tornado losses chart that complete ignores advances in construction design and post-storm analysis; and so on. But thanks for the link anyway.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13299
81. Barefootontherocks
9:40 PM GMT on October 27, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:

Added
I just noticed that I said Steve and not Richard. I know how I did it. I went to school with a Steve Muller. Sorry, Steve. Sorry, Richard.
Had a My chemistry teacher named Dr. Mueller. But he pronounced it "Muller."

Not to worry. I'll be quiet. I'm just here for comic relief.
:)
Member Since: April 29, 2006 Posts: 147 Comments: 17545
80. Ossqss
9:14 PM GMT on October 27, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
I'd say what is really funny is how the ignorati over at WUWT believe that an early-October hurricane striking, say, South Florida or the Keys is equivalent to a massive hybrid storm striking the Northeast at the very end of October. It's also funny how they continue to obfuscate the issue by making it about landfalling storms in the first place(as noted by Rookie in comment #74). It's also funny how they believe that the 30 billion tonnes of excess CO2 we humans pump into the environment each year magically disappear without a trace, and therefore, against the known laws of physics--and, you know, simple common sense--can't possibly have any effect whatsoever on the climate.


Yep, that CO2 has had a direct impact on disaster style weather events eh?


Here is some data, not opinion, for you.

Link

Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
79. RevElvis
8:37 PM GMT on October 27, 2012
U.S. Satellite Plans Falter, Imperiling Data on Storms

NYTimes.com

WASHINGTON — The United States is facing a year or more without crucial satellites that provide invaluable data for predicting storm tracks, a result of years of mismanagement, lack of financing and delays in launching replacements, according to several recent official reviews.

The looming gap in satellite coverage, which some experts view as almost certain within the next few years, could result in shaky forecasts about storms like Hurricane Sandy, which is expected to hit the East Coast early next week.

The endangered satellites fly pole-to-pole orbits and cross the Equator in the afternoon, scanning the entire planet one strip at a time. Along with orbiters on other timetables, they are among the most effective tools used to pin down the paths of major storms about five days ahead.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
78. Neapolitan
7:16 PM GMT on October 27, 2012
Quoting Ossqss:


Yep, it is quite funny that some folks think we never had an October Hurricane hit land before. Just amazing how folks spin fallacy.

Fortunately, some folks deal with facts not fiction.

Thanks WUWT for truth.

"First, a historical review of October landfalling hurricanes. Data from the National Hurricane Center and Stormpulse.

OCTOBER HURRICANES MAKING LANDFALL IN THE USA

[snip]

Pfffft!
I'd say what is really funny is how the ignorati over at WUWT believe that an early-October hurricane striking, say, South Florida or the Keys is equivalent to a massive hybrid storm striking the Northeast at the very end of October. It's also funny how they continue to obfuscate the issue by making it about landfalling storms in the first place(as noted by Rookie in comment #74). It's also funny how they believe that the 30 billion tonnes of excess CO2 we humans pump into the environment each year magically disappear without a trace, and therefore, against the known laws of physics--and, you know, simple common sense--can't possibly have any effect whatsoever on the climate.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13299
77. Ossqss
3:25 PM GMT on October 27, 2012
Quoting nymore:
I see the folks over at Climate Progress jumped on the band wagon today.

Question how many storms this year that did not hit land did the fine people over at Climate Progress blame on AGWT?

This is to easy to call.

All BS aside all the best to those who may be disrupted by this storm


Yep, it is quite funny that some folks think we never had an October Hurricane hit land before. Just amazing how folks spin fallacy.

Fortunately, some folks deal with facts not fiction.

Thanks WUWT for truth.

Link

"First, a historical review of October landfalling hurricanes. Data from the National Hurricane Center and Stormpulse.

OCTOBER HURRICANES MAKING LANDFALL IN THE USA
2005 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Wilma 175 MPH
2002 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Lili 145 MPH
1999 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Irene 110 MPH
1995 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Opal 150 MPH
1989 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Jerry 85 MPH
1987 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Floyd 75 MPH
1985 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Juan 85 MPH
1968 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Gladys 85 MPH
1966 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Inez 150 MPH
1964 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hilda 150 MPH
Isbell 125 MPH
1954 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hazel 140 MPH
1950 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
King 120 MPH
1949 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #10 130 MPH
1948 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #8 130 MPH
1947 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #9 120 MPH
1946 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #5 130 MPH
1944 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #11 120 MPH
1941 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #5 120 MPH
1924 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #7 120 MPH
1923 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #3 100 MPH
1921 Hurricane Season
Name Historic Name Max Winds
Hurricane #6 Tampa Bay 140 MPH
1916 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #13 120 MPH
1913 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Tropical Storm #4 60 MPH
1912 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #5 100 MPH
1910 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #5 150 MPH
1909 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #10 120 MPH
1906 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #8 120 MPH
1904 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #3 80 MPH
1899 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #8 110 MPH
1898 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #7 130 MPH
1894 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #5 120 MPH
1893 Hurricane Season
Name Historic Name Max Winds
Hurricane #9 —– 120 MPH
Hurricane #10 Chenier Caminanda 130 MPH
1888 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #7 110 MPH
1887 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #13 85 MPH
1886 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #10 120 MPH
1882 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #6 140 MPH
1880 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #9 80 MPH
1878 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #11 100 MPH
1877 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #4 120 MPH
1876 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #5 120 MPH
1873 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #5 120 MPH
1870 Hurricane Season
Name Historic Name Max Winds
Hurricane #6 Twin Key West (I) 120 MPH
Hurricane #9 Twin Key West (II) 100 MPH
1869 Hurricane Season
Name Historic Name Max Winds
Hurricane #10 Saxby 100 MPH
1867 Hurricane Season
Name Historic Name Max Winds
Hurricane #7 Galveston 100 MPH
1865 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #7 100 MPH
1860 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #6 100 MPH
1853 Hurricane Season
Name Max Winds
Hurricane #8 100 MPH
1852 Hurricane Season
Name Historic Name Max Winds
Hurricane #5 Middle Florida 100 MPH"

Pfffft!
Member Since: June 12, 2005 Posts: 6 Comments: 8183
76. cyclonebuster
12:09 PM GMT on October 27, 2012
Quoting maxcrc:
It's amazing how taxpayers are forced to waste their money to pay the salaries of a bunch of incompetents who have not even the minimal knowledgement of climatology, physics and mathematics.
These guys jumped to that "genial" conclusion just because the 1998 peak heat due to one of the strongest ENSO in centuries.
They pretend to dismiss a trend which started at the end of the little ice age just because an ultra-short term peak of a single year.
Not a mention of the last decade 2001-2010 being considerably warmer than the past decade 1991-2000 with a similar (and even slightly higher) global thermic difference than the difference between 1991-2000 and 1981-1990. Are we talking about a medium-long climatic trend, aren't we ?
This climatic trend encompasses several medium and shorter trends like PDO turning positive and negative (that explains the temporarily cooling in the 60s and 70s), AMO cycles positive/negative, 10-11 years solar cycles and several ENSO positive/negative.
So, according to those "geniuses" who said global warming has stopped in 1998, the GW has stopped and re-started dozens and dozens times during the last 100 years. Right ?
No, wrong ! This is simple primary school mathematics, we have a longer trend and inside it, there are several shorter trends. A peak due to a temporarily short term peak doesn't count in the trend itself.
I mean, this is stuff for children at primary school.
Those guys are paid a fortune with our taxes and they dare to publish these senseless "studies".
Studies ? Here it's not even worth a discussion, since the basic errors (horrors indeed) made by that folk show a total incompetence even of the basics.
Not even the cooling of the 60s-70s has meant the end of the trend of GW, so are they pretend that a single year did it ?

Currently we are with a negative PDO and with the weakest solar cycle in one century or so and still the global temperature doesn't cool up, it should be a proof that the main long-term trend still pushes towards a heating. It's algebra, you know ?. An equation with some positive numbers and some negative ones. Despite some sure negative factors , the result doesn't lower: it means the X (long term trend of GW) is still positive.

Mathematics, physics, climatology: the basics of all them should be enough to dismiss that senseless "study".



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_10jtPCjQw&featur e=youtu.be
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
75. maxcrc
7:06 AM GMT on October 27, 2012
It's amazing how taxpayers are forced to waste their money to pay the salaries of a bunch of incompetents who have not even the minimal knowledgement of climatology, physics and mathematics.
These guys jumped to that "genial" conclusion just because the 1998 peak heat due to one of the strongest ENSO in centuries.
They pretend to dismiss a trend which started at the end of the little ice age just because an ultra-short term peak of a single year.
Not a mention of the last decade 2001-2010 being considerably warmer than the past decade 1991-2000 with a similar (and even slightly higher) global thermic difference than the difference between 1991-2000 and 1981-1990. Are we talking about a medium-long climatic trend, aren't we ?
This climatic trend encompasses several medium and shorter trends like PDO turning positive and negative (that explains the temporarily cooling in the 60s and 70s), AMO cycles positive/negative, 10-11 years solar cycles and several ENSO positive/negative.
So, according to those "geniuses" who said global warming has stopped in 1998, the GW has stopped and re-started dozens and dozens times during the last 100 years. Right ?
No, wrong ! This is simple primary school mathematics, we have a longer trend and inside it, there are several shorter trends. A peak due to a temporarily short term peak doesn't count in the trend itself.
I mean, this is stuff for children at primary school.
Those guys are paid a fortune with our taxes and they dare to publish these senseless "studies".
Studies ? Here it's not even worth a discussion, since the basic errors (horrors indeed) made by that folk show a total incompetence even of the basics.
Not even the cooling of the 60s-70s has meant the end of the trend of GW, so are they pretend that a single year did it ?

Currently we are with a negative PDO and with the weakest solar cycle in one century or so and still the global temperature doesn't cool up, it should be a proof that the main long-term trend still pushes towards a heating. It's algebra, you know ?. An equation with some positive numbers and some negative ones. Despite some sure negative factors , the result doesn't lower: it means the X (long term trend of GW) is still positive.

Mathematics, physics, climatology: the basics of all them should be enough to dismiss that senseless "study".

Member Since: February 9, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 143
74. Some1Has2BtheRookie
3:29 AM GMT on October 27, 2012
Quoting nymore:
I see the folks over at Climate Progress jumped on the band wagon today.

Question how many storms this year that did not hit land did the fine people over at Climate Progress blame on AGWT?

This is to easy to call.

All BS aside all the best to those who may be disrupted by this storm


Why do you mention a land falling storm being called out as possibly being caused by AGW? The AGWT does not draw any distinctions between land falling and non land falling storm systems. What is unusual about this storm event is all of the circumstances that are falling into place to produce what could be an extremely rare compilation of weather related circumstances. ... Did I say rare? Wait a minute. Did not some very similar circumstances happen in 1991 and was called, "The Perfect Storm"? A rare event that it seems to be becoming less and less a rare event. Yet, two similarly rare storms within 21 years of each other and striking the same general region does not show a trend. Let us hope that it does not become a trend or you may be wishing your best to those that will be affected more often than you would wish to do so.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
73. nymore
2:54 AM GMT on October 27, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
As I said yesterday, Sandy is just another coincidence, that's all. Those 30 billion tonnes of excess CO2 we humans pump into the environment each year--3.4 million tonnes per hour--instantly and magically vanish without a trace, and therefore can't possibly have any effect whatsoever on the climate. It is truly a miracle of physics!

:\
I see the folks over at Climate Progress jumped on the band wagon today.

Question how many storms this year that did not hit land did the fine people over at Climate Progress blame on AGWT?

This is to easy to call.

All BS aside all the best to those who may be disrupted by this storm
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
72. cyclonebuster
8:23 PM GMT on October 26, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Steve Muller should have learned a hard lesson from this. A lesson that has no real value for him to carry forward now and this is simply because he learned the hard lesson too late to undo the damage he helped to create. As an open skeptic of the temperature data and not of the scientific theory itself, he should have kept his skepticism private until he could discover if the reasons for his skepticism were valid. He helped feed the denial industry and allowed them to use his name before he could test the reasons for his skepticism. Normally, this is not a real issue. In this rare, perhaps unique, instance he was putting the lives of us all into his hands through his open skepticism of not the theory itself, but the data that was collected to study the theory. I must say, in all fairness to Steve, that his actions as an open skeptic had no real affect on what is to become us now. Still, I cannot help but think, Steve probably wishes he had not been so open on his skepticism.

I came to the same conclusion a year ago that Steve now has. The time we had to employ any serious mitigation attempts has long passed us by. Adaptation is the only hope I see us being able to cling to now. Any attempts for a climate reversal now would either be fruitless or a desperate attempt that may prove more harmful to us than the warming climate itself. That, my friends, is what I feel is the reality of the situation before us now. I say this only because I have looked at the global politics and economies and realize that nothing meaningful will be done or even attempted, until a sense of desperation drives our efforts. Too little, too late.


Nope as I have said before" Tunnels are the only saving grace".... CHECKMATE....
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
71. Some1Has2BtheRookie
6:45 PM GMT on October 26, 2012
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Not so fast........Tunnels anyone?

Link


Steve Muller should have learned a hard lesson from this. A lesson that has no real value for him to carry forward now and this is simply because he learned the hard lesson too late to undo the damage he helped to create. As an open skeptic of the temperature data and not of the scientific theory itself, he should have kept his skepticism private until he could discover if the reasons for his skepticism were valid. He helped feed the denial industry and allowed them to use his name before he could test the reasons for his skepticism. Normally, this is not a real issue. In this rare, perhaps unique, instance he was putting the lives of us all into his hands through his open skepticism of not the theory itself, but the data that was collected to study the theory. I must say, in all fairness to Steve, that his actions as an open skeptic had no real affect on what is to become us now. Still, I cannot help but think, Steve probably wishes he had not been so open on his skepticism.

I came to the same conclusion a year ago that Steve now has. The time we had to employ any serious mitigation attempts has long passed us by. Adaptation is the only hope I see us being able to cling to now. Any attempts for a climate reversal now would either be fruitless or a desperate attempt that may prove more harmful to us than the warming climate itself. That, my friends, is what I feel is the reality of the situation before us now. I say this only because I have looked at the global politics and economies and realize that nothing meaningful will be done or even attempted, until a sense of desperation drives our efforts. Too little, too late.

Added
I just noticed that I said Steve and not Richard. I know how I did it. I went to school with a Steve Muller. Sorry, Steve. Sorry, Richard.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
70. cyclonebuster
4:06 PM GMT on October 26, 2012
Not so fast........Tunnels anyone?

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
69. Neapolitan
4:04 PM GMT on October 26, 2012
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Figures lie and liars figure. There has been no statistically significant warming (or cooling) worldwide in over a decade:

Link
Denialists deny. David Rose is either a serial liar, a severely confused and uneducated dimwit, or both (though as NeapolitanFan has shown us, those qualities only seem to endear him to his gullible readers).

Link

Link
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13299
68. NeapolitanFan
3:46 PM GMT on October 26, 2012
Figures lie and liars figure. There has been no statistically significant warming (or cooling) worldwide in over a decade:

Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
67. cyclonebuster
12:46 PM GMT on October 26, 2012
Quoting Neapolitan:
One of the greatest mistakes made by many skeptics--or one of the greatest distortions of truth made by denialists--is in assuming/pretending that since periods of catastrophic warming in the past were obviously not induced by the burning of fossil fuels, there's no chance such a warming period could happen now with the burning of fossil fuels. It's obviously a stunningly bad bit of illogic ("denying the antecedent", I believe it's called, though I could be wrong; it's too early to check). Thus, even if the authors of that paper are correct--and not everyone is convinced they are--the takeaway shouldn't be, "There was no ExxonMobil back then so sea levels can't possibly rise now", but rather, "Sea levels may have risen rapidly in the past without the added 'benefit' of added CO2; imagine how much more rapidly they can rise now with that CO2."Another logical fallacy is assuming that something that happened in the past is guaranteed to happen again even though the conditions now (in this case, the tens of billions of tonnes of excess CO2 we're pumping into the environment) are substantially different that they've been in the past.


Sort of like this Neapolitan???

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
66. Neapolitan
12:25 PM GMT on October 26, 2012
Quoting nymore:
I believe this situation we have with Hurricane Sandy is being caused by AGWT.

Wanted to make sure I got on the bandwagon early.

LOL

Have a good day
As I said yesterday, Sandy is just another coincidence, that's all. Those 30 billion tonnes of excess CO2 we humans pump into the environment each year--3.4 million tonnes per hour--instantly and magically vanish without a trace, and therefore can't possibly have any effect whatsoever on the climate. It is truly a miracle of physics!

:\
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13299
65. nymore
11:58 AM GMT on October 26, 2012
I believe this situation we have with Hurricane Sandy is being caused by AGWT.

Wanted to make sure I got on the bandwagon early.

LOL

Have a good day
Member Since: July 6, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 2210
64. Neapolitan
10:48 AM GMT on October 26, 2012
Quoting iceagecoming:






Coral fossils in canal walls at a Mexican resort show evidence of a rapid increase in sea level 121,000 years ago, researchers say. Other experts on corals and climate are not convinced.


By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: April 15, 2009
Evidence from fossil coral reefs in Mexico underlines the potential for a sudden jump in sea levels because of global warming,

The study, being published Thursday in the journal Nature, suggests that a sudden rise of 6.5 feet to 10 feet occurred within a span of 50 to 100 years about 121,000 years ago, at the end of the last warm interval between ice ages.

%u201CThe potential for sustained rapid ice loss and catastrophic sea-level rise in the near future is confirmed by our discovery of sea-level instability%u201D in that period, the authors write.

Link

There must have been some heavy duty Neaderthal bon fires
to cause that rise, or could it be a natural cycle??
One of the greatest mistakes made by many skeptics--or one of the greatest distortions of truth made by denialists--is in assuming/pretending that since periods of catastrophic warming in the past were obviously not induced by the burning of fossil fuels, there's no chance such a warming period could happen now with the burning of fossil fuels. It's obviously a stunningly bad bit of illogic ("denying the antecedent", I believe it's called, though I could be wrong; it's too early to check). Thus, even if the authors of that paper are correct--and not everyone is convinced they are--the takeaway shouldn't be, "There was no ExxonMobil back then so sea levels can't possibly rise now", but rather, "Sea levels may have risen rapidly in the past without the added 'benefit' of added CO2; imagine how much more rapidly they can rise now with that CO2."
Quoting iceagecoming:
Got real cold afterwards, just like the previous glaciations, and warm periods times 5 or 6. Guess what is next if you follow that pattern.
Another logical fallacy is assuming that something that happened in the past is guaranteed to happen again even though the conditions now (in this case, the tens of billions of tonnes of excess CO2 we're pumping into the environment) are substantially different that they've been in the past.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13299
63. cyclonebuster
6:34 AM GMT on October 26, 2012
Quoting FormerAussie:
It may be another reader's already flagged this. But soon after this was published a UK tweet went past me with two graphs - one the traditional hockey stick, the oter the same graph broken into 15 year chunks. It was possible almost every time to look at a fifteen year chuck and see a "flattening out".



Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
62. cyclonebuster
6:30 AM GMT on October 26, 2012
Quoting iceagecoming:






Coral fossils in canal walls at a Mexican resort show evidence of a rapid increase in sea level 121,000 years ago, researchers say. Other experts on corals and climate are not convinced.


By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: April 15, 2009
Evidence from fossil coral reefs in Mexico underlines the potential for a sudden jump in sea levels because of global warming,

The study, being published Thursday in the journal Nature, suggests that a sudden rise of 6.5 feet to 10 feet occurred within a span of 50 to 100 years about 121,000 years ago, at the end of the last warm interval between ice ages.

“The potential for sustained rapid ice loss and catastrophic sea-level rise in the near future is confirmed by our discovery of sea-level instability” in that period, the authors write.

Link

There must have been some heavy duty Neaderthal bon fires
to cause that rise, or could it be a natural cycle??


Got real cold afterwards, just like the previous glaciations, and warm periods times 5 or 6. Guess what is next if you follow that pattern.


Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20221
61. iceagecoming
3:58 AM GMT on October 26, 2012
Quoting Daisyworld:


Longbeach: Wunderground has an extensive climate change section that can answer many of your questions about human-induced global warming (link). They have gone to great lengths to reach out to the public and present as much of the information as possible (a lot of it open and free to everyone), and help explain the complexity of the problem in order for people to make an informed decision. I encourage you to utilize this resource, as it can answer many of your questions on sea level rise, how the measurements are taken, and the statistical uncertainties associated with the measurements: Link about sea level rise here.

One of the most difficult problems climate scientists face is having to first educate (and often, re-educate) people in the basic science first before they can even move on to talk about climate science. Like any technical topic, it would behoove you to research and understand the science and data behind climate science yourself in order to make a more informed decision on the topic.




Cyclonebuster is a nice fellow, but he often talks about a "tunnel project" which no one here is able to help him with. Many of us have looked at his idea, have tried to explain a few things to him, but it never goes much further than that. Take from it what you will.




Okay, first rule in science: Don't dismiss something simply because you find the topic odious or irritating. Labeling something as "scare tactics" before you even listen to what they have to say is limiting your potential knowledge of the topic. If you truly understand physics, then there's entire databases full of knowledge on the physics behind climate change available to you (starting here would be one of many good starting places).






Coral fossils in canal walls at a Mexican resort show evidence of a rapid increase in sea level 121,000 years ago, researchers say. Other experts on corals and climate are not convinced.


By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: April 15, 2009
Evidence from fossil coral reefs in Mexico underlines the potential for a sudden jump in sea levels because of global warming,

The study, being published Thursday in the journal Nature, suggests that a sudden rise of 6.5 feet to 10 feet occurred within a span of 50 to 100 years about 121,000 years ago, at the end of the last warm interval between ice ages.

“The potential for sustained rapid ice loss and catastrophic sea-level rise in the near future is confirmed by our discovery of sea-level instability” in that period, the authors write.

Link

There must have been some heavy duty Neaderthal bon fires
to cause that rise, or could it be a natural cycle??


Got real cold afterwards, just like the previous glaciations, and warm periods times 5 or 6. Guess what is next if you follow that pattern.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1034
60. DelWeather
7:15 PM GMT on October 25, 2012
Neapolitan: Nice illustration! A picture worth more than all my words.
Member Since: October 9, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 50
59. Neapolitan
5:34 PM GMT on October 25, 2012
Quoting FormerAussie:
It may be another reader's already flagged this. But soon after this was published a UK tweet went past me with two graphs - one the traditional hockey stick, the oter the same graph broken into 15 year chunks. It was possible almost every time to look at a fifteen year chuck and see a "flattening out".
Not sure whether this is the graph to which you're referring, but it's a good one nevertheless, as it nicely illustrates the dishonesty of cherry-picking.:

skeptics
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13299
58. Daisyworld
4:39 PM GMT on October 25, 2012
Quoting DrDaveCalgary:
Thanks Daiseyworld for those links. They were most illuminating.
Having reviewed them, it convinces me that there is absolutely no way one can determine the average temperature of the planet to within 0.2 deg C in 1855, 1880 or 1890 for example. Also, since the temperature monitoring stations used throughout the time frame represented in the graph change repeatedly, the series is not, in fact contiguous.
The graph is meaningless.


Okay, since you didn't bother to critically analyze the HadCRUT4 data and associated papers (in fact, I really don't believe you actually read them, but I have no way of proving that), let's look at your assertions:

(1) You feel we can't accurately measure temperature in the latter half of the 19th century.

The fact of the matter is, we can. I encourage you to look at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Old Weather project. There, you will see that we did indeed have trained meteorologists traversing the globe recording detailed weather data on a daily basis in the late 1800s. This shows your first assertion is false.

Next,

(2) You feel that just because the exact same instruments weren't available at the exact same locations throughout the 150 years of the dataset, that it's somehow meaningless to use other means to determine local temperatures across the globe.

So, if I take your meaning: We can't use calibrated instruments such as thermometers, which are easily calibrated using the freezing point and boiling point of water, and set them up in approximate locations near one another to come up with temperature measurements that are statistically identical? Using this logic, I MUST use the EXACT SAME thermometer my grandmother used as a child to make sure my own child does not have a fever today. Obviously, I don't have to do that. So, as with your first assertion, your second assertion is also false.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 787
57. DelWeather
1:19 PM GMT on October 25, 2012
FormerAussie, I'm not sure what you are describing in post 55. It can be difficult to describe graphs in words. Is this what you are saying: If you take any year and draw a line from that data point to the data point 15 years later, you get a horizontal (or low slope) line every time?

If so, this certainly tells you very little. Why compare only two years at a time? Ok, so 2011 is not quite as warm as 1998... and this tell us what, exactly? Pair-wise data comparison is hardly any analysis at all. What are the trends? The single very warm year in 1998 does not, by itself, create a more dramatic warming trend from 1982 to 1998 (connect THOSE two years with a line!). This is a fact that I am certain was pointed out very loudly by global warming skeptics in the late '90. At the same time, a very warm year in 1998 does not create a flat curve for the following years.

I think people are looking for any small grouping of data that proves a point that they already know (in their own minds) to be "true." You have to put your conclusions aside and analyze all of the data. Remember, science is essentially a very thorough-going method for preventing us from fooling ourselves. In much of the cherry-picking of data that I am seeing referred to, the scientific method is mostly absent.
Member Since: October 9, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 50
56. Integral
1:14 PM GMT on October 25, 2012
16 years is not enough data to properly analyze global temperature. At that resolution, you are just seeing noise within the data - all the possible seasonal effects and variations. Using 16 years of data and confidently saying that global warming has stopped is unacceptable.
Member Since: October 25, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
55. FormerAussie
12:32 PM GMT on October 25, 2012
It may be another reader's already flagged this. But soon after this was published a UK tweet went past me with two graphs - one the traditional hockey stick, the oter the same graph broken into 15 year chunks. It was possible almost every time to look at a fifteen year chuck and see a "flattening out".
Member Since: October 10, 2006 Posts: 3 Comments: 54
54. DelWeather
10:50 AM GMT on October 25, 2012
DrDave's analysis of the uncertainty surrounding temperature readings from the late 1800's leads him to dismiss the entire HadCRUT4 temperature data set. I reach a different conclusion after spending an hour with the paper that is linked to the data set. In fact, I am rather impressed with the lengths to which the scientists who compiled the data set went to really understand the uncertainty of the data.

All experimental data sets include uncertainty. This is why I was wringing my hands last Sunday about the lack of any clearly reported uncertainty in the final graph (the first graph in Dr. Rood's piece). But upon following up by reading the paper, I see that plenty of error analysis (an almost overwhelming amount) has been performed. The problem, I guess, is showing that analysis in an easily digestible form. The extensive error analysis graphs (figures 8, 9, and 10) in the paper require a lot of patience, but they are illuminating.

The error analysis shows clearly that the data set is much more uncertain from 1850 to 1900 than it is from 1960 to 2010, for example, which is not surprising for the very reasons that DrDave gives. The "coverage error" is actually quite large. But let's just go with the worst case scenario: monthly averages dominated by the coverage error. Even with these large uncertainties, it is nonetheless very certain that the average temperature from 1850 to 1875 is at or below the 1961 to 1990 average (this latter average provides the zero for the anomaly calculation). Said another way, giving DrDave the upper limit on the uncertainty, the average temperature during 1850-1875 was at most just about the same as the average from 1961-1990. So instead of dismissing the whole data set, replace that early data with a line right along zero (which is fairly certainly an over estimate). Now look at the graph. This rather drastic change leads to absolutely no fundamental change in the interpretation of the increase in average global temperature seen from 1925 onward.

Member Since: October 9, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 50
53. Neapolitan
9:59 AM GMT on October 25, 2012
Quoting DrDaveCalgary:
Thanks Daiseyworld for those links. They were most illuminating.
Having reviewed them, it convinces me that there is absolutely no way one can determine the average temperature of the planet to within 0.2 deg C in 1855, 1880 or 1890 for example. Also, since the temperature monitoring stations used throughout the time frame represented in the graph change repeatedly, the series is not, in fact contiguous.
The graph is meaningless.
In other words, "Because of my preconceived biases and an obvious lack of knowledge on my part due to an unwillingness to do learn, I'm willing to reject a global temperature dataset that is the result of many decades of observation performed at locations across the globe, thousands of hours of mathematical analysis, and the work of hundreds of extremely experienced and educated scientists."

Good luck with that... ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13299
52. greentortuloni
6:08 AM GMT on October 25, 2012
Quoting DrDaveCalgary:
Thanks Daiseyworld for those links. They were most illuminating.
Having reviewed them, it convinces me that there is absolutely no way one can determine the average temperature of the planet to within 0.2 deg C in 1855, 1880 or 1890 for example. Also, since the temperature monitoring stations used throughout the time frame represented in the graph change repeatedly, the series is not, in fact contiguous.
The graph is meaningless.


I, on the other hand, have just currently reviewed them and find them to be perfectly accurate and the graph significant.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
51. greentortuloni
6:03 AM GMT on October 25, 2012
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I saw this earlier. The anti-science movement is alive and well! Should I be a scientist I would be very tempted to tell the world to do their own research and to make their own discoveries for themselves. My only prediction, from that day on, is that I would never lend a hand to save their sorry butts again!


The John Gault approach to society, eh? If only it were that simple.

But this isn't anti-science. This is just people looking for a scapegoat. Why they chose scientists instead of building codes is not clear to me. Maybe because Italy has a reasonable code but the codes are based on (my guess here) LRFD which is like saying you only have to build to withstand a cat two hurricane even though you know that sooner or later a cat 5 will hit. Maybe because Italy is full of historical buildings that no one does anything about until it is time for renovation so designers can't be blamed and it isn't feasible to make everyone renew their house. So the only people left ot blame are scientists. It will get thrown out on appeal probably.

[Having just read the sci am article, the people in charge of the situation should have been blamed, at least more than the scientists. But that, to me, is one of the minor problems with Italian society (in this case with majorly bad results: a lot of people are effing pricks when it comes to academic knowledge and isolate their professional role from their personal one. Not all of them or even the majority but I can imagine the personality of the scientist studying the situation and imagine him then delivering the information in a pompous academic style and walking away without checking to see how it was understood. This same scientist could easily be willing to risk his/her life to save the people in a different situation. It is just that once trapped in their professional pompousness, they don't escape it well.]

In other Italian news, remember me mentioning Matteo Renzi a few years (or months?) back? Looks like he is headed into the national political race.
Member Since: June 5, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 1220
50. DrDaveCalgary
3:22 AM GMT on October 25, 2012
Thanks Daiseyworld for those links. They were most illuminating.
Having reviewed them, it convinces me that there is absolutely no way one can determine the average temperature of the planet to within 0.2 deg C in 1855, 1880 or 1890 for example. Also, since the temperature monitoring stations used throughout the time frame represented in the graph change repeatedly, the series is not, in fact contiguous.
The graph is meaningless.
Member Since: October 20, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2
49. RevElvis
12:23 AM GMT on October 25, 2012
Climate-changing methane 'rapidly destabilizing' off East Coast, study finds


msnbc.com


A changing Gulf Stream off the East Coast has destabilized frozen methane deposits trapped under nearly 4,000 square miles of seafloor, scientists reported Wednesday. And since methane is even more potent than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas, the researchers said, any large-scale release could have significant climate impacts.

Temperature changes in the Gulf Stream are "rapidly destabilizing methane hydrate along a broad swathe of the North American margin," the experts said in a study published Wednesday in the peer-reviewed journal Nature.

Using seismic records and ocean models, the team estimated that 2.5 gigatonnes of frozen methane hydrate are being destabilized and could separate into methane gas and water.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
48. RevElvis
12:12 AM GMT on October 25, 2012
The L’Aquila Verdict: A Judgment Not against Science, but against a Failure of Science Communication

blogs.ScientificAmerican.com

But, contrary to the majority of the news coverage this decision is getting and the gnashing of teeth in the scientific community, the trial was not about science, not about seismology, not about the ability or inability of scientists to predict earthquakes. These convictions were about poor risk communication, and more broadly, about the responsibility scientists have as citizens to share their expertise in order to help people make informed and healthy choices.
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
47. Daisyworld
2:33 PM GMT on October 24, 2012
Quoting DrDaveCalgary:
Since, in four days, no one has been able to answer a very basic question about the first graph, which is the cornerstone of the whole argument, I must assume that there either is no answer or any answer would be highly prejudicial to the validity of the graph i.e. it is scientifically meaningless.


If one were to look at your actual question:

"Can someone explain to me how HadCRUT is able to get a global temperature result accurate to within 0.2 deg Celsius from that time? Clearly they cannot be using the same temperature monitoring stations they are using today. Or are they?"

Clearly, that type of question suggests you haven't bothered to look at the HadCRUT data yourself, nor any of the papers associated with it. That means either (1) you don't know where to look to find that information, or (2) you're expecting others to do the leg work for you in digging up the material.

So, when others possess neither the desire nor the inclination to answer your question, you interpolate silence as a means to a conclusion? That's not very scientific of you, "Dr".

I would suggest that you look at the data yourself before begging the question. To get you started, here is a link to the HadCRUT4 dataset. Good luck.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 787
46. Some1Has2BtheRookie
2:19 PM GMT on October 24, 2012
Quoting DrDaveCalgary:
Since, in four days, no one has been able to answer a very basic question about the first graph, which is the cornerstone of the whole argument, I must assume that there either is no answer or any answer would be highly prejudicial to the validity of the graph i.e. it is scientifically meaningless.


In response to #24

I am not a scientist, but you omit the proxy data that has been collected using modern technology and techniques to acquire the proxy data. You also neglect to mention that any measuring instruments and measurement techniques employed from 150 years ago would be ruled suspect and unreliable, by the denial industry. The denial industry will use any argument it can conjure up in their attempt to bring into doubt what is happening now concerning our climate change. A climate change that mankind is partially responsible for. There is ample evidence that our planet is warming and you do not have to look very hard to see the evidence.

1.The Arctic sea ice would not be going through such drastic melt seasons without a warming climate. Ice does not melt beyond the historical norms with a static or cooling climate. - Common Sense 101

2. The Greenland ice sheet is showing a faster decay than previously observed. Ice does not melt beyond the historical norms with a static or cooling climate. - Common Sense 101

3. CO2 is greenhouse gas that will trap more of the heat from our sun and not allow it to escape back into space. - Basic Science 101

4. Mankind's activities releases tons/day of CO2 into the atmosphere beyond the natural amounts being released. Even Rex Tillerson, the CEO of ExxonMobil, admits this. - Reality 101

5. Observations show us that we are losing snow/ice cover in the higher altitudes. This would include Mt. Kilimanjaro, in Kenya, that is located near the equator and has ALWAYS been located near the equator. Ice does not melt beyond the historical norms with a static or cooling climate. - Common Sense 101

6. Mankind's activities have destroyed much of the natural carbon sinks through deforestation, agriculture, land development, strip mining and mountain top removal. - Reality 101

All of these examples are but a tip of the iceberg, one might say, in all the observational data available to us now concerning climate change.

Common Sense 101 and Basic Science 101 will bring you to Reality 101 of what is happening with climate now. All of what is happening now is happening at an extremely fast pace in terms of such historical events when climate change has happened before. Much, much too quickly for most life forms here to adapt to.

I would imagine that your questions have remained unanswered, by us here, simply because they have been answered many times before by qualified scientist. We have provided answered here, countless times, to such inane and pointless questions before. Should you wish to actually learn more on the questions that ask, then do some research. The answers are there, if you are willing to look for them for yourself. Now, if you are here to just be another example of how the denial industry tries to instill doubt and confusion, then you will enjoy greater pleasures of this exercise by posting on Anthony Watt's anti-science blogosphere. I feel certain that CAT5Hurricane can offer you directions to his website. - Do you agree, TomballTXPride?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
44. DrDaveCalgary
12:35 PM GMT on October 24, 2012
Since, in four days, no one has been able to answer a very basic question about the first graph, which is the cornerstone of the whole argument, I must assume that there either is no answer or any answer would be highly prejudicial to the validity of the graph i.e. it is scientifically meaningless.
Member Since: October 20, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2
43. Daisyworld
3:00 AM GMT on October 24, 2012
While probably more applicable to Dr. Rood's previous blog entry on the subject, a recent NASA press release shed some light on the often misinterpreted phenomena of Antarctica sea ice gain in the midst of record Arctic sea ice loss:

Opposite Behaviors? Arctic Sea Ice Shrinks, Antarctic Grows

There's some excellent explanation about the differences in polar geographies, and a fascinating description of ice growth and ice loss around the Southern Ocean being due to atmospheric circulation changes from a depleted ozone layer. The resulting cooling of the polar stratosphere sets up a strong temperature gradient from warming temperate latitudes, resulting in strengthened circumpolar winds flowing over the Ross Ice Shelf, which in turn, creates expanding polynyas that push sea ice northward.

Excerpt (emphasis mine):

"There's been an overall increase in the sea ice cover in the Antarctic, which is the opposite of what is happening in the Arctic... However, this growth rate is not nearly as large as the decrease in the Arctic." [...] This year's winter Antarctic sea ice maximum extent, reached two weeks after the Arctic Ocean's ice cap experienced an all-time summertime low, was a record high for the satellite era of 7.49 million square miles, about 193,000 square miles more than its average maximum extent for the last three decades... The Antarctic minimum extents, which are reached in the midst of the Antarctic summer, in February, have also slightly increased to 1.33 million square miles in 2012, or around 251,000 square miles more than the average minimum extent since 1979... The numbers for the southernmost ocean, however, pale in comparison with the rates at which the Arctic has been losing sea ice – the extent of the ice cover of the Arctic Ocean in September 2012 was 1.32 million square miles below the average September extent from 1979 to 2000. The lost ice area is equivalent to roughly two Alaskas.

(NASA researcher Claire) Parkinson said that the fact that some areas of the Southern Ocean are cooling and producing more sea ice does not disprove a warming climate... "Climate does not change uniformly: The Earth is very large and the expectation definitely would be that there would be different changes in different regions of the world," Parkinson said. "That's true even if overall the system is warming." Another recent NASA study showed that Antarctic sea ice slightly thinned from 2003 to 2008, but increases in the extent of the ice balanced the loss in thickness and led to an overall volume gain.
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 787
42. Nimbus111
8:14 PM GMT on October 23, 2012
interesting
Member Since: July 23, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
41. Xandra
12:04 PM GMT on October 23, 2012
Mitt Romney's Dirty Dozen

Meet 12 of the most anti-environment supporters behind the Republican nominee's campaign

By Tim Dickinson

Not so long ago, Mitt Romney used to blast deadly coal-fired power plants and talk up emission caps to curb the "dramatic warming of our planet." But as the GOP nominee for president, Romney has become dirty energy's biggest cheerleader. As his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, slams federal investment in wind and solar energy as "green pork," Romney is loudly championing Big Oil, Big Coal, fracking and the disastrous Keystone XL pipeline that will bring climate-killing Canadian crude to the global export market.

What accounts for Mitt's extreme energy makeover? Millions of dollars in campaign spending from fossil-fuel titans and advice from the drill-baby-drill crowd might have something to do with it. Here's a look at Romney's Dirty Dozen – the lobbyists, CEOs and advisers who are driving his radical dirty-energy agenda.
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1240
40. Some1Has2BtheRookie
7:34 PM GMT on October 22, 2012
Quoting RevElvis:
Scientists Who Failed to Warn of Quake Found Guilty of Manslaughter

slashdot.org

BBC reports "Six Italian scientists and an ex-government official have been sentenced to six years in prison over the 2009 deadly earthquake in L'Aquila. A regional court found them guilty of multiple manslaughter. Prosecutors said the defendants gave a falsely reassuring statement before the quake, while the defence maintained there was no way to predict major quakes. The 6.3 magnitude quake devastated the city and killed 309 people."


I saw this earlier. The anti-science movement is alive and well! Should I be a scientist I would be very tempted to tell the world to do their own research and to make their own discoveries for themselves. My only prediction, from that day on, is that I would never lend a hand to save their sorry butts again!
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4728
39. RevElvis
7:10 PM GMT on October 22, 2012
Scientists Who Failed to Warn of Quake Found Guilty of Manslaughter

(edited) original story on BBC News

slashdot.org

BBC reports "Six Italian scientists and an ex-government official have been sentenced to six years in prison over the 2009 deadly earthquake in L'Aquila. A regional court found them guilty of multiple manslaughter. Prosecutors said the defendants gave a falsely reassuring statement before the quake, while the defence maintained there was no way to predict major quakes. The 6.3 magnitude quake devastated the city and killed 309 people."
Member Since: September 18, 2005 Posts: 25 Comments: 948
38. Daisyworld
12:30 PM GMT on October 22, 2012
Quoting 007longbeach:
In regards to sea level rises I have two questions. First is that where I am on the Southwest Washington State coast, I know that on average we have been rising (the land that is) about 2 mm per year due to the subduction zone off the coast here. Is there proof that sea levels have incrased if you remove any earth movement w.r.t. the center of mass of the planet? The second question is when you look for changes of even a few centimeters, what are they using as the frame of reference? I think it must be something much more than driving a stick in the ground, hahaha. GPS makes sence, but what about the built in error? You just can't use other locations in the deffinition to define what you are measureing without causing a lot of error in the measurement. I always want to see the error analysis before I would believe any data! There never seems to be any error at all when the information is given to the public, which suggests to me that someone is not very truthful.


Longbeach: Wunderground has an extensive climate change section that can answer many of your questions about human-induced global warming (link). They have gone to great lengths to reach out to the public and present as much of the information as possible (a lot of it open and free to everyone), and help explain the complexity of the problem in order for people to make an informed decision. I encourage you to utilize this resource, as it can answer many of your questions on sea level rise, how the measurements are taken, and the statistical uncertainties associated with the measurements: Link about sea level rise here.

One of the most difficult problems climate scientists face is having to first educate (and often, re-educate) people in the basic science first before they can even move on to talk about climate science. Like any technical topic, it would behoove you to research and understand the science and data behind climate science yourself in order to make a more informed decision on the topic.


Quoting 007longbeach:


Tunnel? I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. As for 1 foot... I'm at 14' so really isn't that much is it in 100 years. Going to go see what the other link you have up is all about. It better not be B.S.!


Cyclonebuster is a nice fellow, but he often talks about a "tunnel project" which no one here is able to help him with. Many of us have looked at his idea, have tried to explain a few things to him, but it never goes much further than that. Take from it what you will.


Quoting 007longbeach:
don't bother with the link to CBS... not worth my time to watch it. More scare tactics if you ask me and little if any real value to a person who understands physics.


Okay, first rule in science: Don't dismiss something simply because you find the topic odious or irritating. Labeling something as "scare tactics" before you even listen to what they have to say is limiting your potential knowledge of the topic. If you truly understand physics, then there's entire databases full of knowledge on the physics behind climate change available to you (starting here would be one of many good starting places).
Member Since: January 11, 2012 Posts: 6 Comments: 787

Viewing: 88 - 38

Page: 1 | 2Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.

Local Weather

Partly Cloudy
45 °F
Partly Cloudy