Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
OH and by the way Methane (C4) is only 37 times as effective a greenhouse gas as CO2. Really, I think Real Scientist is a blind test to see how accurate your average true believers bullshit detection equipment is working. THUS the 10% of doubt is reaffirmed.  |
| |
|
|
Steve M
And what exactly were the faults of the various M&M papers (there were 3, not 1, 2 of which were published in science journals). Try to find anything that actually refutes what they say that doesn't rely on bristlecone pine data.
Also, refer to Wegman's report to the US Senate if you want a bit more to ponder re Mann et al.'s creative use of statistical techniques. Professor Wegman is one of the most distinguished statisticians in America, so cannot be attacked from the perspective of authority (unlike has happened with M&M).
|
| |
|
|
quote: Firstly, global warming is not actually that complex. There are just three factors: the sun, valcano's, and CO2 levels.
And we know the Sun so well. Is it 6000 degrees C or is it 5695 degrees C? And what about those solar flares with all that magnetic ejecta? Their temp is 1,500,000 degrees, give or take a few hundred thousand. And volcanos. They spew out a bunch of global cooling last I heard. So is Science here talking about your average ring of fire family of volcano, or is he factoring in a couple super volcanos like Yellowstone? And our old friend CO2. There is a big industry in sucking CO2 out of the air. Push came to shove we could set up big CO2 sucking farms. But what about water vapor? You know the main greenhouse gas? What about How CO2 is just 4% of the greenhouse gas and water is 95%? Only three factors to GW. I told you people this guy is a fruitloop. |
| |
|
|
quote: Also, refer to Wegman's report to the US Senate if you want a bit more to ponder re Mann et al.'s creative use of statistical techniques. Professor Wegman is one of the most distinguished statisticians in America, so cannot be attacked from the perspective of authority (unlike has happened with M&M).
I can only find the Energy and Environment paper by M&M. Yes Wegman is a distinguished statistician, and was able to recommend modifications to the statistical methods. Qualitatively, the modifications make no difference to the "hockey stick" graph. Now that it has undergone such critical scrutiny is it now reasonable to accept it? |
| |
|
|
quote: Qualitatively, the modifications make no difference to the "hockey stick" graph.
That's definitely not the take of McIntyre on this issue. Or of Wegman et al, with the following quote: "In general, we found MBH98 and MBH99 to be somewhat obscure and incomplete and the criticisms of MM03/05a/05b to be valid and compelling." Also, attached is a link for the report, so others can read and make up their own minds. http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07...06_Wegman_Report.pdfIt should be remembered that prior to MBH98 and 99, there was general acceptance of a MWP and LIA of essentially global importance, based on a large number of local proxy studies. If the Mann et al reconstructions are to be taken seriously they must prove to be robust enough to overwhelm contradictory data, not just to be plausible. |
| |
|
|
This is a really obscure denier argument designed to confuse the issue and has nothing to do with the fact that we have significant recent warming that can be explained very well by CO2 emissions.
Yes there were minor flaws in the original statistical process which were accepted. But I say again:
If you rerun the reconstruction of past temperatures with the same data and the corrected method, the results give you the same hockey stick curve.
Why is that not the end of the debate? The results, as reproduced by many others, gives excellent evidence that the 1950-2000 was the warmest 50 years for 1300 years despite the cooling from aerosols in the 60s and 70s. Since then it has stayed pretty warm, so I guess the evidence just keeps growing.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Why is that not the end of the debate? The results, as reproduced by many others, gives excellent evidence that the 1950-2000 was the warmest 50 years for 1300 years despite the cooling from aerosols in the 60s and 70s. Since then it has stayed pretty warm, so I guess the evidence just keeps growing.
There is also a lot of evidence to suggest that this is not correct, indicating warmer periods (at least on a local to regional scale) in the 1940s (particularly in the USA, but also in north eastern Europe) and in the 1000-1400 AD era. As with many issues on climate change, you just have to decide which papers you want to trust. The significant recent warming can also be attributed partly/largely to solar activity, sun spots and to changes in the Earth's albedo (urban heating, changes to land due to irrigation etc). All have recent peer reviewed papers in support. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Dr Ian B:
[QUOTE]Why is that not the end of the debate? The results, as reproduced by many others, gives excellent evidence that the 1950-2000 was the warmest 50 years for 1300 years despite the cooling from aerosols in the 60s and 70s. Since then it has stayed pretty warm, so I guess the evidence just keeps growing.
i am not a scientist. i am howevereducated and can see the thread of an argument. Dr B when you say -indicating warmer periods (at alocal to regional scale) - are you not rather confussing the wheole issue. Global warming is exactly that global. Why compaare the global warming 1980 to 2007 with regional(you givr no indication of the size of these 'regions')warming of 1940 to 1960? Chalk and cheese surley. Where do the figures for warminf in USa and NE Eur come from? Also where do you get your data from for 1000 to 1400 AD. I gather from my reading that you cannot attribute the recent warming to sloar activity and changes in the albedo effect alone which i think is precisely why co2 has been considered as a factor?? Maybe im reading the wrong stuff. Can you suggsets somewhere to get your side where i can rely on the facts? |
| |
|
|
With all this tall of hockey sticks, it's worth pointing out that the IPCC's own report observes that interglacial warming occured ( in some areas ) in as little as 20 years. The warming is described as being 'very abrupt'.
Interestingly, this is part of the IPCC report's section on past climate change is something that AGW advocates ignore when they want to present 'hockey sticks' as something outrageously abnormal.
|
| |
|
|
Dr B have you read Osborn and Briffa in Science on the data used for the Hockey stick?
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Chi Squared:
With all this tall of hockey sticks, it's worth pointing out that the IPCC's own report observes that interglacial warming occured ( in some areas ) in as little as 20 years. The warming is described as being 'very abrupt'.
Interestingly, this is part of the IPCC report's section on past climate change is something that AGW advocates ignore when they want to present 'hockey sticks' as something outrageously abnormal.
Which report and which areas? |
| |
|
|
quote: Which report and which areas?
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/074.htm"The warming phase, that took place about 11,500 years ago, at the end of the Younger Dryas was also very abrupt and central Greenland temperatures increased by 7°C or more in a few decades (Johnsen et al., 1992; Grootes et al., 1993; Severinghaus et al., 1998). Most of the changes in wind-blown materials and some other climate indicators were accomplished in a few years (Alley et al., 1993; Taylor et al., 1993; Hammer et al., 1997). Broad regions of the Earth experienced almost synchronous changes over periods of 0 to 30 years" Well fancy that ! Major global climate change in ' " a few decades " ! Not an SUV in sight ! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by papertiger0:
A few properties of methane. Methane is lighter then air. Methanes critical temperature is minus -115.8 degrees. It is a non polar molecule and is insoluable in water.
So when a guy comes on here and says he speaks for the scientific community, then asserts that "methane will rise from the sea and kill us all if the temperature goes up 10 degrees" you can be pretty certain he is a kook.
Can you enlighten me on the points above. surely the importance of the methane stored under the oceans is that the frozen methane clathrates are kept stable by pressure and temperature? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Chi Squared: quote: Which report and which areas?
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/074.htm"The warming phase, that took place about 11,500 years ago, at the end of the Younger Dryas was also very abrupt and central Greenland temperatures increased by 7°C or more in a few decades (Johnsen et al., 1992; Grootes et al., 1993; Severinghaus et al., 1998). Most of the changes in wind-blown materials and some other climate indicators were accomplished in a few years (Alley et al., 1993; Taylor et al., 1993; Hammer et al., 1997). Broad regions of the Earth experienced almost synchronous changes over periods of 0 to 30 years" Well fancy that ! Major global climate change in ' " a few decades " ! Not an SUV in sight !
This was at the end of the Younger Dryas - the end of the the last ice age but one (820 years ago. Sudden chanages from one extreme to another were the norm then rather than the exception. We have had a stable climate (in comparison) for how long? So we are chalking and cheesing again! |
| |
|
|
Robmb
1) I'm aware of Osborn and Briffa, but haven't read the paper. There are other recent multi-proxy studies as well (Moberg et al. for one) that show a bit more evidence of a MWP and LIA.
2) The argument re CO2 or solar becomes rather circular, as it is based largely on computer model data rather than real world observations. It then depends how much faith you have in the parameters included in the computer models to allow for solar changes and albedo (and cloud formation and aerosols). This is one of the areas where real uncertainties exist
3) Today's 'Global' warming is really a number of regions where quite strong warming is being measured (Siberia, Alaska, Western Europe) and a number of regions where not much is happening (the entire Southern Hemisphere, most of Continental North America), and even some local cooling (much of Antarctica). Global temperature is a construct of a large number of local data, so the average does not actually show a truly global effect (in the sense of everywhere getting hotter). There are also some serious technical issues in constructing a global surface temperature from the data that do exist (for example, about half the world's weather stations closed in 1990, mainly in eastern and northern Europe due to the fall of the Communist bloc; this inevitably led to a significant warming of raw temperature data [i.e. simple mean of all station data], for which mathematical corrections had to be applied. Unfortunately, such corrections are very difficult to verify for a complex system).
Going back in time, proxy studies are by their nature even more limited to a relatively small number of locations, as there are few viable proxies (ice cores, some types of tree, shell isotopes).
There are of course a number of sources that provide links to journal papers on the whole global warming issue. One of the best from a mildly skeptical viewpoint (i.e. skeptical of catastrophic warming rather than of skeptical of any significant A in AGW) is the site of Roger Pielke Snr. See for example the recent paper listed there on recent reconstruction of Swiss Alpine temperature.
|
| |
|
|
quote: This was at the end of the Younger Dryas - the end of the the last ice age but one (820 years ago. Sudden chanages from one extreme to another were the norm then rather than the exception. We have had a stable climate (in comparison) for how long? So we are chalking and cheesing again!
I find this statement somewhat ridiculous. How do sudden changes get to be the 'norm' one moment and not the next ? Stable climate ?? What about the little ice age and the medieval warm period ? |
| |
|
|
Chi Sq are you saying that the switch from ice age to inetrglacial and back again is roughly what has happened on earth over the past 4000 years? LIA amd MWP are not in the same league.
~Surely you can agree to that?
|
| |
|
|
quote: With all this tall of hockey sticks, it's worth pointing out that the IPCC's own report observes that interglacial warming occured ( in some areas ) in as little as 20 years. The warming is described as being 'very abrupt'.
Interestingly, this is part of the IPCC report's section on past climate change is something that AGW advocates ignore when they want to present 'hockey sticks' as something outrageously abnormal.
In the same section: quote: These rapid climatic events of the last glacial period, best documented in Greenland and the North Atlantic, have smoothed counterparts in Antarctica (Bender et al., 1994; Jouzel et al., 1994). A peak in the concentration of the isotope beryllium-10 in ice cores (Yiou et al., 1997a), changes in the concentration of atmospheric methane (Blunier et al., 1998) and in the isotopic content of oxygen in ice cores (Bender et al., 1999) indicate links between the Northern and Southern Hemisphere climates over this period. Large Greenland warming events around 36 and 45 ky BP lag their Antarctic counterparts by more than 1,000 years. This argues against coupling between northern and southern polar regions via the atmosphere but favours a connection via the ocean (Blunier et al., 1998).
So not a global event and therefore unlikely to have been caused by GHG rises. No SUVs required. Should this not, instead, be a warning to us of the potential of earth to change very rapidly to a perturbation? |
| |
|
|
quote: 2) The argument re CO2 or solar becomes rather circular, as it is based largely on computer model data rather than real world observations. It then depends how much faith you have in the parameters included in the computer models to allow for solar changes and albedo (and cloud formation and aerosols). This is one of the areas where real uncertainties exist
The theory of CO2 warming predates the electronic computer. quote: 3) Today's 'Global' warming is really a number of regions where quite strong warming is being measured (Siberia, Alaska, Western Europe) and a number of regions where not much is happening (the entire Southern Hemisphere, most of Continental North America), and even some local cooling (much of Antarctica).
Warming in Northern latitudes since 1900, about 1.1C, Equatorial latitudes 0.5C, southern latitudes 0.5C. data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.B.lrg.gif Temperature data from 6 continents align with this (IPCC). Temperature data from the ocean aligns with this (NASA). Antarctica is warming, though at a slower rate. The Antarctic peninsula is warming very quickly (though this is only a small region). Some observation stations may have closed. Satellites have increased. The "urban effects" are not significant. |
| |
|
|
quote: Chi Sq are you saying that the switch from ice age to inetrglacial and back again is roughly what has happened on earth over the past 4000 years? LIA amd MWP are not in the same league.
~Surely you can agree to that?
No...it's a totally fallacious argument. Just because Jupiter's red spot has been there 300 years ( i.e a seemingly 'stable' system ) does not mean it will still be there next year. By the same token, you cannot argue that the seeming 'stability' of 4000 years is any indicator of a continuation in that trend. If past indicators show chaotic behaviour, then the system is inherently unstable. Sure the LIA and MWP and not in the same league. But then neither is a rise of 0.6 degrees in a century in the same league as the ice age. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Dr Ian B:
Robmb
1) I'm aware of Osborn and Briffa, but haven't read the paper. There are other recent multi-proxy studies as well (Moberg et al. for one) that show a bit more evidence of a MWP and LIA.
2) The argument re CO2 or solar becomes rather circular, as it is based largely on computer model data rather than real world observations. It then depends how much faith you have in the parameters included in the computer models to allow for solar changes and albedo (and cloud formation and aerosols). This is one of the areas where real uncertainties exist
3) Today's 'Global' warming is really a number of regions where quite strong warming is being measured (Siberia, Alaska, Western Europe) and a number of regions where not much is happening (the entire Southern Hemisphere, most of Continental North America), and even some local cooling (much of Antarctica). Global temperature is a construct of a large number of local data, so the average does not actually show a truly global effect (in the sense of everywhere getting hotter). There are also some serious technical issues in constructing a global surface temperature from the data that do exist (for example, about half the world's weather stations closed in 1990, mainly in eastern and northern Europe due to the fall of the Communist bloc; this inevitably led to a significant warming of raw temperature data [i.e. simple mean of all station data], for which mathematical corrections had to be applied. Unfortunately, such corrections are very difficult to verify for a complex system).
Going back in time, proxy studies are by their nature even more limited to a relatively small number of locations, as there are few viable proxies (ice cores, some types of tree, shell isotopes).
There are of course a number of sources that provide links to journal papers on the whole global warming issue. One of the best from a mildly skeptical viewpoint (i.e. skeptical of catastrophic warming rather than of skeptical of any significant A in AGW) is the site of Roger Pielke Snr. See for example the recent paper listed there on recent reconstruction of Swiss Alpine temperature.
thanks Dr B good to have a reasoedn conversation. Will check out Roger Pielke's site. Sorry my post 15.05 gave wrong part of your quote but you seem to have caught mty drift. I not sure 'much of Antartica is cooling' fits with 'some local cooling' - isnt Antartica rather large - it certainloy look so on my map. Anecdotal evidence i have from someone who spends most of his time down there is that it is getting hotter, less ice and considerable change has already occured and is on going. |
| |
|
|
robmb
The most recent data I've seen suggests that warming and (extra) melting is only really significant on the Ross Ice Shelf, which is the only bit of the Antarctic continent that extends into the Southern Ocean circumpolar currents. This is only a small proportion of the overall land mass of the continent.
I think this is covered in the IPCC SPM, in the summary table relating to sea level rise contributions (at least once they'd corrected the screw-up of units).
|
| |
|
|
There is a big variability relating to what they call the southern hemisphere annular mode (SAM), but there is evidence for a 0.2C rise since the late 19th Century. www.agu.org/journals/gl/gl0616/2006GL027057/They point to other work saying that the ozone hole influenced the | |
