Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[82_VOL_83]

Stop hogging all the snow Knoxville, the slopes are bare here in the pacific northwest.

Stay warm fellas

That's because all you libs are full of hot air. Shut up for a while and it will get cold again. Just don't exhale.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Hey, the President said climate change is a fact last night!

He'd never lie.

Well he did tell one truth then. The climate will be different tomorrow than it is today, different the day after, then the day after.......

 

[82_VOL_83]

Dammit, the thread has been hijacked again by the damn pseudo-climatologists.

 

[Sandvol]

I’m going to assume you say this out of honest ignorance. As I’ve stated, the divergence of tree ring data from direct instrumental temperature measurements has been openly discussed in peer-reviewed literature since Jacoby 1995. The IPCC covered it in the third report and in even more detail in the fourth report. Why would Jones and Mann conspire to cover up the decline in tree ring growth when it has been openly discussed in the literature since 1995? Climategate wasn’t even about the Yamal tree ring data – in fact McIntyre admits to having obtained that data from the Russians in 2004. It was about climate skeptics taking phrases in the hacked e-mails out of context as part of a deliberate smear campaign.



I’ve listed several. Of course they’re all a sham according to the conspiracy theorist.



All other data sets do support the surface temperature data. NOAA’s website shows data for Land Surface Air Temperature, Sea-surface Temperature, Marine Air Temperature, Sea Level, NH (March-April) Snow Cover, Tropospheric Temperature, Ocean Heat Content (0-700m), Specific Humidity, Stratospheric Temperature, September Arctic Sea-Ice Extent, and Glacier Mass Balance. In fact it shows several data sets for each climate indicator. I’ve also linked several other proxy data. You have yet to provide one data set that contradicts AGW. You have yet to specifically state which data set(s) you take issue with.

Who's ignorant? This is from WSJ:

1) Hide data requested by outsiders.
Phil Jones to Mike Mann:


The two MMs [probably Ross McKitrick and Steve McIntyre] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.

Phil Jones to Gavin Schmidt (Climatologist at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies):


All our FOI [Freedom of Information] officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond—advice they got from the Information Commissioner. ...

The FOI line we’re all using is this. IPCC is exempt from any countries FOI—the skeptics have been told this.

2) Delete emails and lie about their back conversations on rewriting the IPCC report.

Phil Jones to Mike Mann:


Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the IPCC report]? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene [Wahl, an employee of the U.S. Department of Commerce] and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar [Amman, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research] to do likewise Cheers, Phil.

And:


Keith should say that he didn’t get anything extra that wasn’t in the IPCC comments.

Although the Russell panel’s finding reports “evidence that emails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them [under Freedom of information law],” Fred Pearce of the Guardian points out:


Yet, extraordinarily, it emerged during questioning that Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this.

3) Manipulate (or “enhance”) data to support findings such as the “Hockey Stick” graph made famous in Al Gore’s movie, among other outlets. Phil Jones, explaining that switching over from the use of “proxy data”—tree-ring samples—used to derive temperatures for earlier periods, to “real temperatures” for the more recent years, “hides” the decline in temperatures that the tree-ring data shows in more recent years—and, voilá, produces the continually upward-rising (“hockey stick”) temperature graph:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. ...

Despite its other gaps, the Russell investigation did agree that use of this “trick” was improper, and:

was misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together.

4) Bring down a leading climate journal in response to its publishing a peer-reviewed article skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.
Michael Mann:


Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board.

Phil Jones:


I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.

 

[Sandvol]

"All other data sets do support the surface temperature data. NOAA’s website shows data for Land Surface Air Temperature, Sea-surface Temperature, Marine Air Temperature, Sea Level, NH (March-April) Snow Cover, Tropospheric Temperature, Ocean Heat Content (0-700m), Specific Humidity, Stratospheric Temperature, September Arctic Sea-Ice Extent, and Glacier Mass Balance. In fact it shows several data sets for each climate indicator. I’ve also linked several other proxy data. You have yet to provide one data set that contradicts AGW. You have yet to specifically state which data set(s) you take issue with."

We were discussing temperature data sets. Please show the balloon data set or proxy data set that you linked that supports the surface temperature data warming period.

 

[Sandvol]

Also, "stratospheric data", you'll have to let me know what stratospheric data is.

 

[BartW]

Who's ignorant? This is from WSJ:
1) Hide data requested by outsiders.

2) Delete emails and lie about their back conversations on rewriting the IPCC report.

3) Manipulate (or “enhance”) data to support findings such as the “Hockey Stick” graph made famous in Al Gore’s movie, among other outlets. Phil Jones, explaining that switching over from the use of “proxy data”—tree-ring samples—used to derive temperatures for earlier periods, to “real temperatures” for the more recent years, “hides” the decline in temperatures that the tree-ring data shows in more recent years—and, voilá, produces the continually upward-rising (“hockey stick”) temperature graph

Despite its other gaps, the Russell investigation did agree that use of this “trick” was improper, and:

was misleading in not describing that one of the series was truncated post 1960 for the figure, and in not being clear on the fact that proxy and instrumental data were spliced together.[/B]

4) Bring down a leading climate journal in response to its publishing a peer-reviewed article skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.

1) Yes the CRU legally stonewalled McIntyre. He’s is a bigwig in Canadian minerals and oil that runs a climate skeptic blog and he’d been bugging them for various data for years (much of which was granted, publically available, or had already been acquired such as the Yamal tree ring data – see post above). It’s understandable that he got under their skin, especially after he got his blog followers to bombard the CRU with fill-in-the-blank FoI requests.
2) The same Russell report found “There seems clear incitement to delete e-mails, although we have seen no evidence of any attempt to delete information in respect of a request already made.” (The former is legal but not the latter.) The email dated 3/12/2008 included “a clear statement that e-mails had been deleted […] It seems likely that many of these ‘deleted’ e-mails subsequently became public following the unauthorized release from the backup server.” You can read the actual report without the WSJ spin here.
3) The Russel report found that the figure in a 1999 WMO report was misleading because it didn’t explicitly state the data were spliced. The figure was originally from Mann’s 1998 paper in Nature where it was clear (hence the phrase “Mike’s Nature trick”).
4) Your post doesn’t mention which journal it is. If it’s that energy and environment crap you posted earlier, I wouldn’t call it a “leading climate journal”. It’s perfectly normal for scientists and editors to butt heads. This is also covered in the Russell report.

We were discussing temperature data sets. Please show the balloon data set or proxy data set that you linked that supports the surface temperature data warming period.

Well all the data I just listed besides surface temperature are all proxy data. Tropospheric and stratospheric temperature are satellite-derived proxy data (snow cover and ice extent are probably also from satellites). In post 1668 I linked borehole and stalagmite temperature reconstructions. In post 1574 I showed ice core data. Here is another NOAA site listing paleoclimatology proxies (historical data, corals, fossil pollen, ocean and lake sediments). This wiki provides some references too.

So which data set contradicts AGW?

Also, "stratospheric data", you'll have to let me know what stratospheric data is.

Temperature of the stratosphere (which is decreasing just as climate scientists predicted). It’s derived from satellite measurements.

 

[Sandvol]

"Well all the data I just listed besides surface temperature are all proxy data. Tropospheric and stratospheric temperature are satellite-derived proxy data (snow cover and ice extent are probably also from satellites). In post 1668 I linked borehole and stalagmite temperature reconstructions. In post 1574 I showed ice core data. Here is another NOAA site listing paleoclimatology proxies (historical data, corals, fossil pollen, ocean and lake sediments). This wiki provides some references too."

I've never known satellite data to be characterized as proxy data. But, I don't mind looking at your other posts.

 

[Sandvol]

Are you talking about the chart on post #1574 where the proxy data is spliced with the fictional GHG forcing model?

 

[BartW]

Technically anything that isn't a direct measurement is proxy data. The satellites measure radiation intensity at different wavelengths.

 

[Sandvol]

I don't see any linkage to borehole or stalagmite temperature reconstructions.

 

[Sandvol]

Technically anything that isn't a direct measurement is proxy data. The satellites measure radiation intensity at different wavelengths.

I've always known proxy data to be preserved characteristics of the past like ice core or tree rings. Never heard anyone call satellite data proxy data but hey you learn something new.

 

[Sandvol]

Oh, I think I get your argument now. Because the proxy data and the forcing models correlate so well in the past and the recent proxy data doesn't correlate it must be the "newest" proxy data is wrong and the forcing models are correct. Is that it?

 

[BartW]

Are you talking about the chart on post #1574 where the proxy data is spliced with the fictional GHG forcing model?

The purple line is global temperature. The other lines are forcings. Here it is with details.

I don't see any linkage to borehole or stalagmite temperature reconstructions.

my psycho alarmists web sites

I've always known proxy data to be preserved characteristics of the past like ice core or tree rings. Never heard anyone call satellite data proxy data but hey you learn something new.

:hi:

In geophysics we rarely make direct observations (it’s hard to do that underground…) so it involves primarily proxy data.

Oh, I think I get your argument now. Because the proxy data and the forcing models correlate so well in the past and the recent proxy data doesn't correlate it must be the "newest" proxy data is wrong and the forcing models are correct. Is that it?

Close. Tree rings are hardly the newest proxy data. All proxy data are consistent with measurements and forcing models except a subset of the tree ring data (at high latitudes) which started to diverge in the 60s.

 

[Sandvol]

"Close. Tree rings are hardly the newest proxy data. All proxy data are consistent with measurements and forcing models except a subset of the tree ring data (at high latitudes) which started to diverge in the 60s."

That's a convenient argument but the simulations haven't correctly predicted what is going on now. The simulations show one thing, the proxy data something else, and the actual temperature somewhere in between. And, the US and European countries have significantly reduced their carbon emissions anyway. What are all the alarmists going to do about China? We can't counterbalance what China is doing unless we can build a giant sulfur dioxide generator but then we would have to worry about the laws of unintended consequences. Why don't all of you go over there and protest carbon emissions in China? Aren't they the real problem now?

 

[Sandvol]

4) Your post doesn’t mention which journal it is. If it’s that energy and environment crap you posted earlier, I wouldn’t call it a “leading climate journal”. It’s perfectly normal for scientists and editors to butt heads. This is also covered in the Russell report.

It is odd you would describe a publication of the Royal Society of Chemistry as crap.

 

[BartW]

That's a convenient argument but the simulations haven't correctly predicted what is going on now. The simulations show one thing, the proxy data something else, and the actual temperature somewhere in between. And, the US and European countries have significantly reduced their carbon emissions anyway. What are all the alarmists going to do about China? We can't counterbalance what China is doing unless we can build a giant sulfur dioxide generator but then we would have to worry about the laws of unintended consequences. Why don't all of you go over there and protest carbon emissions in China? Aren't they the real problem now?

They data look pretty consistent to me. This is from Mann et al.’s 2008 paper Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. You can even download the data, read the methods, and do the reconstructions yourself. Again, specifically what data set disproves AGW?

It’s fascinating how westerners view AGW as a communist conspiracy to reduce our standard of living while the Chinese view AGW as a western conspiracy to reduce their standard of living. I think they have some valid points – their per capita emissions are significantly lower than ours. But I think their argument that they don’t need to assume as much responsibility as developed countries because they’ve only recently industrialized is weak. In the globalized society we live in everyone needs to pull their weight in mitigating the damage, regardless of whether or not your great great grandpappy lived in an industrialized country. I would obviously like to see us put more political pressure on China to go green, but hey, it isn’t even that high of a priority here in the states.

It is odd you would describe a publication of the Royal Society of Chemistry as crap.

I called energy and environment crap.

 

[Sandvol]

"I called energy and environment crap."

So you're calling energy and environment crap or the publication crap?

 

[Sandvol]

They data look pretty consistent to me. This is from Mann et al.’s 2008 paper Proxy-based reconstructions of hemispheric and global surface temperature variations over the past two millennia. You can even download the data, read the methods, and do the reconstructions yourself. Again, specifically what data set disproves AGW?

It’s fascinating how westerners view AGW as a communist conspiracy to reduce our standard of living while the Chinese view AGW as a western conspiracy to reduce their standard of living. I think they have some valid points – their per capita emissions are significantly lower than ours. But I think their argument that they don’t need to assume as much responsibility as developed countries because they’ve only recently industrialized is weak. In the globalized society we live in everyone needs to pull their weight in mitigating the damage, regardless of whether or not your great great grandpappy lived in an industrialized country. I would obviously like to see us put more political pressure on China to go green, but hey, it isn’t even that high of a priority here in the states.



I called energy and environment crap.

Ah, here we go again. You guys keep regurgitating the same crap. Nobody in their right mind would give any credence to anything Mann or Jones publish.

 

[Sandvol]

What does it matter if their per capita emissions are less? Their total overall emissions are twice what ours' are. And, ours' are dropping.

 

[Sandvol]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

 

[BartW]

So you're calling energy and environment crap or the publication crap?

I called energy and environment crap. I don’t know what publication you’re referring to.

Ah, here we go again. You guys keep regurgitating the same crap. Nobody in their right mind would give any credence to anything Mann or Jones publish.

The plot contains results from authors besides Mann and Jones. Ignore them if you want there are thousands of other climate scientists in dozens of countries each doing their own reconstructions and they all arrive at the same conclusion. Heck, this WSJ investigation funded by the Koch brothers even concluded that global warming is real. I’m going to keep asking, specifically what data do you think contradicts AGW?

 

[BartW]

What does it matter if their per capita emissions are less? Their total overall emissions are twice what ours' are. And, ours' are dropping.

Well obviously bigger countries with larger populations will have higher CO2 emissions. The Chinese have some legitimate arguments. But like I said I don’t think China should be treated as a developing country.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BQpciw8suk

That WSJ article I linked was written by the same professor. “Mike’s nature trick” and “hide the decline” were actually two separate things referring to two separate people, so he sounds uninformed when he says "Mike's trick to hide the decline". The figure on the WMO report could be seen as misleading since it doesn’t explicitly state what data were used, but it is clear in all the original publications.

 

[Sandvol]

Well obviously bigger countries with larger populations will have higher CO2 emissions. The Chinese have some legitimate arguments. But like I said I don’t think China should be treated as a developing country.

Thanks for agreeing with me.

That WSJ article I linked was written by the same professor. “Mike’s nature trick” and “hide the decline” were actually two separate things referring to two separate people, so he sounds uninformed when he says "Mike's trick to hide the decline". The figure on the WMO report could be seen as misleading since it doesn’t explicitly state what data were used, but it is clear in all the original publications.

He knew the e-mail referred to two different people. We was just abreviating for the audience. That still doesn't make his point any less valid.

 

[Sandvol]

"I’m going to keep asking, specifically what data do you think contradicts AGW?"

I keep repeating myself. Global temperatures have not changed significantly for the last 17 years while greenhouse gases have surged.

Satellite data and balloon data do not agree with surface temperature data.

Proxy data does not agree with surface temperature data.

Forcing models have been a complete failure.