Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[BartW]

Alaska Just Suffered a Major, Avalanche-Filled Heat Wave

Temperatures 40 degrees above average. Crazy!

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

We need GW... Cold weather causes murder

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

Hey Bart... You are the one cherry picking. Why do you think that chart starts in 1970?

Here is a chart from 10000 BC from Ice core samples in Vostok, Antarctica.

Not good enough? How about a sample from the Alps for the past 2000 years

 

[BartW]

Hey Bart... You are the one cherry picking. Why do you think that chart starts in 1970?

Here is a chart from 10000 BC from Ice core samples in Vostok, Antarctica.

Not good enough? How about a sample from the Alps for the past 2000 years

If you look back over the last few pages you'll see I've also posted Vostok ice core and speleothem data, among several proxies spanning several time frames. This graph starts in the 70s because it shows how 'skeptics' view AGW. It debunks the common claim "global warming stopped in year X" (insert preferred year - some say 95, some 98, 2002, 2007, heck some people on this board believe it stopped this winter).

We need GW... Cold weather causes murder

Yup. Cold weather breeds pirates

 

[VolsNSkinsFan]

If you look back over the last few pages you'll see I've also posted Vostok ice core and speleothem data, among several proxies spanning several time frames. This graph starts in the 70s because it shows how 'skeptics' view AGW. It debunks the common claim "global warming stopped in year X" (insert preferred year - some say 95, some 98, 2002, 2007, heck some people on this board believe it stopped this winter).



Yup. Cold weather breeds pirates

The graph starts in the 70s because thats when a cold spell ended and we started to warm up a bit

 

[82_VOL_83]

I am going to take the PKT tac here. I DON'T GIVE A SHIITE ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. By the time all this crap takes place my grandkids will be old.

 

[82_VOL_83]

Yup. Cold weather breeds pirates

Early nominee for post of the year.

 

[Sandvol]

It’s OK to be skeptical, but there is a fine line between skeptic and denialist. Scientists are skeptics – most were very skeptical of AGW when it was first suggested (just like any paradigm-shifting discovery), but as the evidence accumulated more and more embraced it as fact. Singer is not a skeptic – he’s a denialist. Even worse he appears to be a denialist-for-hire. If I were you I’d look into his history and reconsider trusting him as a scientific authority.

I actually located a copy of Singer’s paper (here). Having read it and some background it appears that his central claim is that there is a statistically significant difference between the UAH satellite dataset and climate models in the tropical lower troposphere. This is essentially the same song and dance that Spencer and Christy (who derived and maintain the UAH dataset) have been performing since 1990. Granted back then there was a significant difference between their data and the models, but since then several errors have been discovered in their analysis (by themselves and others) and several revisions have been made that have brought their trend closer to what is predicted by the models.

There are more suggestions still that may improve the agreement between UAH and the models, such as including the forcings of the two major eruptions in the satellite era (El Chicon and Pinatubo) and correcting for the stratospheric cooling bias. Today it’s still true that UAH shows a slightly lower than expected tropospheric temperature trend in the tropics (UAH currently shows 0.14 C/decade, while models indicate it should be about 0.2 C/decade). Whether this is statistically significant and calls into question our understanding of atmospheric physics and confidence in our ability to successfully model future climate is essentially the point of contention. Santer et al. found that the difference is not statistically significant – here is his paper which Singer attempts to rebut. I don’t have the data or knowledge of statistics to evaluate their claims, but I’ll take Santer’s word for it over Singer considering Singer’s history, the history of corrections to the UAH dataset, and the fact that it’s the outlier. UAH is only one of several groups analyzing satellite data, and they only find a discrepancy between observed and modelled warming trends only in the lower troposphere only at the tropics.



These aren’t spectra and I don’t see it in the Singer paper. Is this the figure you meant to post?



That’s such a typical example of cherrypicking. I’m just going to leave this again.

Those errors found only amount to 69/1000's per decade closer. I wouldn't call that significant. And, they could find more errors that would correct it the other way. You can call him a denialist if you want but that is the alarmists' way of marginalizing anyone who disagrees with them. He is an esteemed physicist with many peer reviewed publications done with the highest integrity. Not the junk that Mann and Jones put out that you keep referencing. It might be cherry picking but that is the same conclusion that Berkeley Earth came to. Muller believes the temperature rise is due to CO2 but no forcing model that I know of has been able to explain it with a 95% confidence. How do you know it isn't just due to randomness? I am sure if you get a team of a half dozen alarmists they can poke holes in anything but so can the skeptics. Give us something concrete.

 

[Sandvol]

Hey Bart... You are the one cherry picking. Why do you think that chart starts in 1970?

Here is a chart from 10000 BC from Ice core samples in Vostok, Antarctica.

Not good enough? How about a sample from the Alps for the past 2000 years

Thanks for putting up the proxy charts but Bart already knew they existed. And, I'm sure he has all kinds of evidence to marginalize this data.

 

[BartW]

.069 isn't that small compared to the UAH trend .14. That's 50%. New corrections could go the other way, who knows. Most have increased the trend in the past.

Singer did some good work early in his career, transitioned to administrator, then became the definition of expert-for-hire. He's been proven fraudulent countless times. I'm libertarian but he's crazy out there free market fundamentalist. He opposes the scientific consensus on every environmental issue on the basis that it's an environmental issue. I would really advise looking into Singer before you stand by him. He's just way too easy to roast

 

[Sandvol]

.069 isn't that small compared to the UAH trend .14. That's 50%. New corrections could go the other way, who knows. Most have increased the trend in the past.

Singer did some good work early in his career, transitioned to administrator, then became the definition of expert-for-hire. He's been proven fraudulent countless times. I'm libertarian but he's crazy out there free market fundamentalist. He opposes the scientific consensus on every environmental issue on the basis that it's an environmental issue. I would really advise looking into Singer before you stand by him. He's just way too easy to roast

I love crazy free market fundamentalist. And, I'd have to see if Singer agreed with any of the error corrections.

 

[Sandvol]

If you look back over the last few pages you'll see I've also posted Vostok ice core and speleothem data, among several proxies spanning several time frames. This graph starts in the 70s because it shows how 'skeptics' view AGW. It debunks the common claim "global warming stopped in year X" (insert preferred year - some say 95, some 98, 2002, 2007, heck some people on this board believe it stopped this winter).

Hey, that's what the recent IPCC is saying in AR5....1998. Go argue with them.

Yup. Cold weather breeds pirates

 

[BartW]

Hey, that's what the recent IPCC is saying in AR5....1998. Go argue with them.

Where exactly in AR5 does it say global warming ended in 1998? From the headline statements:

"Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform."

"Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2. "

 

[508mikey]

its - 15 below zero, here in Illinois today -- stop this nonsense about global warming -- Gen Beauregard Lewis can do better than the GW clowns.

 

[Sandvol]

Where exactly in AR5 does it say global warming ended in 1998? From the headline statements:

"Global surface temperature change for the end of the 21st century is likely to exceed 1.5°C relative to 1850 to 1900 for all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. It is likely to exceed 2°C for RCP6.0 and RCP8.5, and more likely than not to exceed 2°C for RCP4.5. Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform."

"Cumulative emissions of CO2 largely determine global mean surface warming by the late 21st century and beyond. Most aspects of climate change will persist for many centuries even if emissions of CO2 are stopped. This represents a substantial multi-century climate change commitment created by past, present and future emissions of CO2. "

You keep going off on tangents. This is from Mann and Santer-your guys!

Is 'pause' the right scientific description?
To Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University best known for the famed "hockey stick" graph showing a dramatic warming in surface temperatures from 1,000 years ago to the present, even framing the slowdown in surface temperature increases as a "pause" can be misleading, because global warming has continued.

Mann agreed with other researchers that the oceans are likely taking up a certain amount of heat and that the recent small volcanic eruptions probably also have played a role in keeping surface warming at bay.

"The problem isn't that we cannot explain the temporary slowdown in warming -- the problem is that there are so many explanations for it, we're not yet sure what the true role is for each," he wrote in an email.

Mann also pointed out that surface temperatures, even if their rate of increase has slowed, still fall within the range of IPCC model projections.

Both Santer and Trenberth agreed that models could probably improve their representation of natural variability, solar cycles, and cooling factors like volcanic eruptions and aerosols.

But picking a period of a decade or so where one part of the Earth's climate system fails to warm and using it to discredit all of climate science is a fallacious argument, and one driven by those with an agenda to discredit climate scientists, the researchers say.

P.S.-You keep using the word stopped. The correct terminology is pause. I prefer to use "beginning of a trend reversal."

 

[Sandvol]

Damn Bart you're right it is really warming up there in Alaska!

Anchorage, AK

Thursday 6:00 AM

Light snow


undefined


3

°F | °C


Precipitation: 60%

Humidity: 84%

Wind: 4 mph


Temperature

Precipitation

Wind

 

[BartW]

*Sigh* I was hoping this embarrassment of a thread would reach its internet grave. How am I going off on a tangent? That was a direct response to your claim that the IPCC’s AR5 says global warming stopped [excuse me – “paused” or “began a trend reversal”] in 1998. Mann and Santer aren’t “my guys” per se, they’re just two of thousands of climate scientists worldwide that agree on AGW. Did you even read that quote? It doesn’t support you one bit.

I came here fully expecting to find a circlejerk over the recent snowmageddon (how is it, btw?), but instead an Alaskan weather update. Ok. Do you deny they just had a massive heat wave that triggered avalanches, made a mess of traffic, and rerouted or cancelled dog sled races and ski events? How about the recent record setting heat waves in Australia, South America, and South Africa (you know, where it’s summer)? Sochi’s looking pretty warm isn’t it? We can play this game all day.

Have you looked into Singer yet?

 

[Sandvol]

*Sigh* I was hoping this embarrassment of a thread would reach its internet grave. How am I going off on a tangent? That was a direct response to your claim that the IPCC’s AR5 says global warming stopped [excuse me – “paused” or “began a trend reversal”] in 1998. Mann and Santer aren’t “my guys” per se, they’re just two of thousands of climate scientists worldwide that agree on AGW. Did you even read that quote? It doesn’t support you one bit.

I came here fully expecting to find a circlejerk over the recent snowmageddon (how is it, btw?), but instead an Alaskan weather update. Ok. Do you deny they just had a massive heat wave that triggered avalanches, made a mess of traffic, and rerouted or cancelled dog sled races and ski events? How about the recent record setting heat waves in Australia, South America, and South Africa (you know, where it’s summer)? Sochi’s looking pretty warm isn’t it? We can play this game all day.

Have you looked into Singer yet?

[Double sigh]You're the one who brought up Alaska. Ha-massive heat wave. I guess that's the first ever recorded avalanche or warming trend in Alaska? And, it does support my point if you'd try to understand it within its context. These are two kooks who like you would never admit a pause. The best you're going to get them to admit is a "slowdown". I can see them now spending all night doing their little curve fits on the data. Ever since everyone started questioning the pause they at first didn't have a rebuttal but have since spent the last year like you saying, "well its not really a pause, it's just a slowdown." Even though their predictions were it was going to go asymptotic.

Yes-Singer is a distinguished physicist and emeritus professor from the University of Virginia.

 

[BartW]

[Double sigh]You're the one who brought up Alaska. Ha-massive heat wave. I guess that's the first ever recorded avalanche or warming trend in Alaska? And, it does support my point if you'd try to understand it within its context. These are two kooks who like you would never admit a pause. The best you're going to get them to admit is a "slowdown". I can see them now spending all night doing their little curve fits on the data. Ever since everyone started questioning the pause they at first didn't have a rebuttal but have since spent the last year like you saying, "well its not really a pause, it's just a slowdown." Even though their predictions were it was going to go asymptotic.

Yes-Singer is a distinguished physicist and emeritus professor from the University of Virginia.

60+ degrees in Alaska in the middle of January is pretty hot. Neither these two kooks nor any other climate scientist in the world believes global warming has stopped, paused, or began a trend reversal. Nowhere in AR5 does it say that. Let’s review:

Post 1738 (IPCC):

Warming will continue beyond 2100 under all RCP scenarios except RCP2.6. Warming will continue to exhibit interannual-to-decadal variability and will not be regionally uniform."

Post 1740 (Mann):

…even framing the slowdown in surface temperature increases as a "pause" can be misleading, because global warming has continued

Mann also pointed out that surface temperatures, even if their rate of increase has slowed, still fall within the range of IPCC model projections.

.picking a period of a decade or so where one part of the Earth's climate system fails to warm and using it to discredit all of climate science is a fallacious argument, and one driven by those with an agenda to discredit climate scientists

Nobody predicted temperature would increase asymptotically or exponentially (which I assume is what you meant - both are physically impossible).

 

[Sandvol]

60+ degrees in Alaska in the middle of January is pretty hot. Neither these two kooks nor any other climate scientist in the world believes global warming has stopped, paused, or began a trend reversal. Nowhere in AR5 does it say that. Let’s review:

Post 1738 (IPCC):


Post 1740 (Mann):


Nobody predicted temperature would increase asymptotically or exponentially (which I assume is what you meant - both are physically impossible).

Yes thanks exponentially. I can't account for words I use at 4:00am. Did you see Gore's movie? Half the eastern seaboard was supposed to be flooded by now.

 

[Sandvol]

60+ degrees in Alaska in the middle of January is pretty hot. Neither these two kooks nor any other climate scientist in the world believes global warming has stopped, paused, or began a trend reversal. Nowhere in AR5 does it say that.

That 62 degree temperature only tied the record and January this year in Anchorage was only the 4th warmest on record. I don't know when the official record started but I doubt they did a lot of recording temperatures during the Yukon Gold rush.

 

[Sandvol]

IPCC Scientist: Global Warming Pause “May Stubbornly Continue Until 2020 Or 2025″
Date: 22/09/13

Pierre Gosselin, No Tricks Zone

German online Spektrum.de science magazine conducted an in-depth interview with two leading international climate scientists, Professor Mojib Latif and Professor Hans von Storch.

For the record, both now concede that global temperatures have indeed defied the vast array of (expensive) model projections and have not gone up in 15 years. Now more than ever before they are forced to concede that the models have been giving CO2 too much weight as a climate driver.

But Latif, who 10 years ago predicted Europe would hardly see snow and frost in the wintertime, now claims that he “isn’t at all surprised in any way by the warming hiatus” (and that all the models have been wrong). To his credit, Latif in the past predicted that ocean cycles needed to be better taken into account and that the warming would pause due to ocean cycles.

Hans von Storch, on the other hand, says he is surprised by the stalled warming: “It hasn’t gotten as warm as we expected. [...] We really have to think about whether or not our models can really project the future development.”

 

[Sandvol]

IPCC contributors

 

[BartW]

I tried watching Gore’s movie after I ran out of things to watch on Netflix. Only got through about a third of it. The film was pretty unbearable he obviously didn’t know what he was talking about. It’s like listening to Morgan Freeman pretending to know physics just because he narrated Into the Wormhole. I’m not going to rewatch it to find what claim specifically you are exaggerating, but I doubt he called for the submersion of NYC by 2014. Sea level rise has been pretty steady, as you can see in the pdf you linked.

If you read the pdf you linked maybe you’d understand what is meant by “pause”. Obviously the earth system continues to accumulate energy – there’s more energy incident upon the surface than is radiated to space. It’s simple math. Global warming isn’t just going to stop. Surface temperatures have increased less in the past decade than on average for the past century. Ok. Interannual and decadal variation in surface temperature exist. I don’t see what’s so hard to grasp. Actually read the Met Office paper (and parts 1 and 3 if you have some time on your hands) and let me know what you think.

On Singer, I would read past the first line of his Wikipedia entry. He hasn’t managed to publish relevant work in peer-reviewed literature for decades. Instead he spreads his misinformation by writing op-eds, testifying in congress, and coming on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show; a classic denialist maneuver. When he started his anti-envirocommunism crusade in the 80s he employed another classic denialist tactic by using his degree to feign expertise in fields he had little to no experience in. As part of the Acid Rain Peer Review Panel he delayed sulfur dioxide legislation for years. He opposes the ban on DDT despite its obvious toxicity. He denied CFCs cause ozone depletion for years, eventually recanted, and now depending on what day of the week you ask him he may or may not believe it. He worked for the tobacco bullsh!t machine. His denialist thinktank SEPP was founded in affiliation with the Moonies. The freakin Moonies. He’s had crazier buddies though – for a while he supported the idea that Mars’ moon is hollow and built by martians. He’s been on the payroll for the Tobacco Institute, Exxon, Shell, Unocal, Arco, and Sun Oil (especially Exxon, which stands alone amongst big oil companies in continuing to downplay AGW). He was a principal orchestrator of the hilariously fraudulent Leipzig Declaration. He claims to own a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for “reviewing” the IPCC. He even wrote a book “Bad Science” that is essentially a how-to guide for denialists. It’s been the same strategy for decades, starting with the tobacco industry. Discredit the science, disseminate false information, spread confusion, and promote doubt

 

[Sandvol]

I tried watching Gore’s movie after I ran out of things to watch on Netflix. Only got through about a third of it. The film was pretty unbearable he obviously didn’t know what he was talking about. It’s like listening to Morgan Freeman pretending to know physics just because he narrated Into the Wormhole. I’m not going to rewatch it to find what claim specifically you are exaggerating, but I doubt he called for the submersion of NYC by 2014. Sea level rise has been pretty steady, as you can see in the pdf you linked.

If you read the pdf you linked maybe you’d understand what is meant by “pause”. Obviously the earth system continues to accumulate energy – there’s more energy incident upon the surface than is radiated to space. It’s simple math. Global warming isn’t just going to stop. Surface temperatures have increased less in the past decade than on average for the past century. Ok. Interannual and decadal variation in surface temperature exist. I don’t see what’s so hard to grasp. Actually read the Met Office paper (and parts 1 and 3 if you have some time on your hands) and let me know what you think.

On Singer, I would read past the first line of his Wikipedia entry. He hasn’t managed to publish relevant work in peer-reviewed literature for decades. Instead he spreads his misinformation by writing op-eds, testifying in congress, and coming on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show; a classic denialist maneuver. When he started his anti-envirocommunism crusade in the 80s he employed another classic denialist tactic by using his degree to feign expertise in fields he had little to no experience in. As part of the Acid Rain Peer Review Panel he delayed sulfur dioxide legislation for years. He opposes the ban on DDT despite its obvious toxicity. He denied CFCs cause ozone depletion for years, eventually recanted, and now depending on what day of the week you ask him he may or may not believe it. He worked for the tobacco bullsh!t machine. His denialist thinktank SEPP was founded in affiliation with the Moonies. The freakin Moonies. He’s had crazier buddies though – for a while he supported the idea that Mars’ moon is hollow and built by martians. He’s been on the payroll for the Tobacco Institute, Exxon, Shell, Unocal, Arco, and Sun Oil (especially Exxon, which stands alone amongst big oil companies in continuing to downplay AGW). He was a principal orchestrator of the hilariously fraudulent Leipzig Declaration. He claims to own a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for “reviewing” the IPCC. He even wrote a book “Bad Science” that is essentially a how-to guide for denialists. It’s been the same strategy for decades, starting with the tobacco industry. Discredit the science, disseminate false information, spread confusion, and promote doubt

Wow,
Why don't you spend that much energy investigating Mann or Jones?