Global Warming backdown

[waldo]

yes, exactly... but if I might... of course, the fundamental driver relative to global warming/cooling is the Earth’s surface distribution of sunshine influenced by orbital variations (the Milankovitch cycle theory). All things being equal, this sunshine distribution works inherently with the natural greenhouse effect... keeping the Earth to the livable warm temperature mankind requires for life. However, as it is today, all things are not equal... as initiated by the orbital variations, increasing GHG’s act as feedback amplifying the warming once it begins. So... yes, as an amplifying feedback, increasing levels of CO2 and the resulting enhanced greenhouse effect, is the “driver” you reference... the one responsible for the significant increase in warming experienced these (relatively) recent decades.

some skeptic/denier types presume to suggest an inconsistency between the Milankovitch cycle theory and the AGW climate change theory. On the other hand, the overwhelming consensus of scientists and the prevailing science, maintains there is no inconsistency between these theories. Additionally, the understood warming properties of CO2 are consistent with the quantitative contribution of CO2 to the warming/cooling within glacial periods (re: lead vs. lag aspects of CO2 versus temperature, vis-a-vis ice core records and glacial terminations).

Well dang, its nice to hear you acknowledge Milankovitch cycles and their impact. But what about variations in solar output/solar cycles (ie: sunspots?)? Do you think they are a factor as well? Skeptics make a good case for them, but i haven't heard much about them from the msm AGW proponents.

Months ago Michael Hardner gave a me a link to a scientific article looking at CO2 and temp over the past few hundred million years or so (actually, Phanerozoic era if i remember). It looked at CO2 + solar output and its links to global temps, and it found a very high link. Here's the weblink: https://wesfiles.wesleyan.edu/home/droyer/web/PhanCO2%28GCA%29.pdf. See page 5668.

I'm not sure what your point is concerning an acknowledgment of Milankovitch... I've certainly never stated CO2 is the single only consideration. However, in the context of the relative recent warming, in particular the most recent decades, as I stated, CO2 is the primary consideration, given the amplifying feedback increasing levels of CO2 has towards a resulting enhanced greenhouse effect... the “driver” responsible for the significant increase in warming experienced these (relatively) recent decades. If it's your intent/meaning, perhaps you could make your case for the influence Milankovitch cycles may have had in regards the relatively recent climate change warming.

as for your stated considerations of sunspots, I offered up an earlier reference, albeit an indirect comment associated with a linked NASA Science News article... doubling up on wyly's recent reply to you, let me repeat my earlier reply that alluded to the, "deepest solar minimum in nearly a century"; i.e. reduced/minimal sunspot activity and accompanied reduced solar irradiance... and all the while, earth's global temperatures increased (due to the enhanced greenhouse effect resulting from increased CO2 levels).

So far, 2010 is the warmest year on record, according to both NASA and the National Climatic Data Center.

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/05/2010-is-warmest-year-on-record/1

I only bring it up to be amused by how the deniers respond.

and, of course... we've been in the

deepest solar minimum in nearly a century

- that only now appears to be waning. So, here come da Sun, here come da Sun! All other things being equal... let's see what happens to global earth temperatures (even accepting to an upcoming revived la Nina cycle).

as to your last reference regarding your earlier query soliciting info sources for CO2-to-temperature correlations, I recall Michael offering that linked paper... I've also just checked and you didn't offer comment at that time. I'm not sure what relevance you're attempting to draw from that paper, particularly comparing paleo events (and the level of sun activity within the Phanerozoic) to recent global warming correlated against reduced/minimal solar activity.

[Pliny]

solar output has an effect...unfortunately for the skeptics it just helps confirms the CO2 cause for this warming, solar activity has been lower than normal for a few decades so temps should have dropped, but they haven't they're still climbing...there is no link to solar activity and this warming...

They are still climbing? I thought the whole controversy was that the models were predicting climbing but it wasn't happening?

[Guest TrueMetis]

They are still climbing? I thought the whole controversy was that the models were predicting climbing but it wasn't happening?

It depends on how long you model. In the last ten years or so it's been downward in the last twenty it's an upward. The twenty year model is statistically significant, the ten year one isn't.

[waldo]

It depends on how long you model. In the last ten years or so it's been downward in the last twenty it's an upward. The twenty year model is statistically significant, the ten year one isn't.

actually, even with the minimal 10 year reference, temperature trending is upward across all the respective temperature record groupings... examples - from 2000 forward:

- GISTEMP

- UAH

- RSS

- HADCRUT3

the whole statistical significant thingee reflected singularly upon the HADCRUT3 dataset... which, of course, itself, is influenced by the significant fact the CRU land temperature records do not include the arctic regions (areas where the most dramatic warming has occurred). Equally, the significance thingee associated with the endpoint as 2009... now that we're well on our way to what appears will be the warmest year on record (2010), the relevance (if there ever was a relevance) of the CRU statistical thingee only exists in the faint hearts and minds of the intellectually challenged/dishonest deniers. Why, I do believe you actually created a MLW thread to highlight the antics of one MLW miscreant

[jbg]

It depends on how long you model. In the last ten years or so it's been downward in the last twenty it's an upward. The twenty year model is statistically significant, the ten year one isn't.

They're both importrant, but both driven by the inclusion or exclusion of Pinatubo (cooling event during late 1990 or early 1991) or the super El Niño (warming event 1997-8). But the 1000 year measurements don't show warming.

[Michael Hardner]

Didn't Phil Jones says that the temperatures were just short of showing significant increase ? In other words, no increase but no cooling either ?

[waldo]

Didn't Phil Jones says that the temperatures were just short of showing significant increase ? In other words, no increase but no cooling either ?

once more... with feeling...in regards the purposely cherry-picked 15-year short-term interval... and only as applies to CRU data, yes, Jones did advise that the traditional 95% confidence level wasn't realized. If I recall correctly, it came in at a 93% level. Of course, full statistical significance is realized with the CRU data if one takes anything greater than a 15-year interval... it's why the denier twats purposely fed the question to the BBC correspondent targeted to start from 1995. As the CRU data was/is in the public domain, the question was a blatant attempt to "catch" Jones not confirming the correct statistical relevance... to his credit, of course, Jones remained accurate and suffered the full weight of the denialsphere for it. Of course, the record 2010 temperatures throw that whole statistical significance canard out now, as moving that purposeful 15-year cherry picked interval (1995-2009) ahead to now include 2010 (1996-2010) brings forward the full 95% statistical significance for the CRU data... but don't let that get in the way of the intellectually dishonest miscreants who continue to revel in the Jones quote.

to be precise... there is an actual warming trend within the CRU data for the purposely short-term trending 15 year interval period chosen... a positive temperature trend of 0.12°C per decade. And, as stated previously, the CRU temperature record has always been the one to show the least warming of all the various temperature records... for the simple fact it does not include arctic region coverage (the area that has received the most significant warming across the earth). Notwithstanding, of course, legitimate climate change trending intervals are recognized as periods greater than 20+ years.

[waldo]

They're both importrant, but both driven by the inclusion or exclusion of Pinatubo (cooling event during late 1990 or early 1991) or the super El Niño (warming event 1997-8).

is there a translation for your crafted wording? If you're attempting to highlight the failings in cherry-picked trending... a purposeful manipulation of start/end points... well done; obviously, ensuring proper trending intervals don't attempt to leverage impact events is a fundamental requirement in realizing legitimate trending result. Was that what you're attempting to say?

But the 1000 year measurements don't show warming.

nonsense... unless you're unprincipled and wish to deny the myriad of recognized temperature reconstructions. Is that your game/aim?

[Shady]

I'm still waiting for the alarmist explanation for the medieval warming period. Even Phil Jones has admitted that the warming then probably exceeds any warming that he's noticed presently. Fact: The earth has been much warmer in the past. Many times over. But somehow alarmists like to pin things today to a microscopic fraction of an increase, to a microscopic portion of the composed atomsphere.

If the atmosphere was made up of a million houses. CO2 would be equivalent to a couple hundred houses. Out of a million houses!

Edited June 12, 2010 by Shady

[Oleg Bach]

OIL was a blessing and to be used in moderation - it was not supposed to be a raging vehicle for blind and crazed greed. They sell as much of the stuff as possible - even if you don't need it they shove it down your throat - You can not burn billions of barrels of oil and get away with it.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm still waiting for the alarmist explanation for the medieval warming period. Even Phil Jones has admitted that the warming then probably exceeds any warming that he's noticed presently. Fact: The earth has been much warmer in the past. Many times over. But somehow alarmists like to pin things today to a microscopic fraction of an increase, to a microscopic portion of the composed atomsphere.

If the atmosphere was made up of a million houses. CO2 would be equivalent to a couple hundred houses. Out of a million houses!

Come on, Shady, even the skeptical scientists don't doubt that CO2 is an important factor.

[waldo]

and the U.S. Republican war against science continues...

the dumbing down of Carly Fiorina - Apparently, you have to pretend to be ignorant of science to win a Republican primary these days

The

-- who is running in the Republican primary to take on incumbent Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer -- mocks Boxer for saying in 2007 that "one of the very important national security issues frankly is climate change."

After playing a clip of Boxer's statement, Fiorina faces the camera and responds, "Terrorism kills, and Barbara Boxer's worried about the weather."

No one doubts that Boxer made the comment. But we wanted to check the context of Boxer's remark and see if Fiorina was quoting it accurately. We examined three elements:

• How well-accepted is the idea of climate change as a national security threat?

Sufficiently well-established to have been been promoted by both the Pentagon and CIA.

A

Quadrennial Defense Review Report

issued by the Department of Defense in February 2010 states that "assessments conducted by the intelligence community indicate that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments. Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration." It concludes that "while climate change alone does not cause conflict, it may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world."

Meanwhile, on Sept. 25, 2009, the

CIA announced the launch of a Center on Climate Change and National Security

. According to a CIA press release announcing the launch, the center's charter "is not the science of climate change," but rather "the national security impact of phenomena such as desertification, rising sea levels, population shifts, and heightened competition for natural resources."

So while there is certainly room for disagreement about how big a national security threat climate change will ultimately be, Boxer is hardly advocating a fringe theory. The notion that climate change will be significant is being discussed at the Pentagon and the CIA.

whaaaa! Following up on this earlier post, more of the Republican war on science:

I've made reference, several times now, to the significance the U.S. Defense Department places on security and threats relative to climate change (the Quadrennial Defense Review)... as well as an earlier thread reference to the Annual Threat Assessment given to the U.S. Senate by the U.S. Director of National Intelligence... and the earlier reference to the CIA's positioning in regards U.S. national security impacts relative to climate change.

yup, all this strategic analysis, risk assessment and planning... all this concern... from spooks and the military. And yet, Republican nominee Carly Fiorina seems intent on continuing to attempt to denigrate her upcoming opponent's (Barbara Boxer's) like expressed heightened concerns.

what is it about Republicans that, in presuming to get elected, they feel a need to distance themselves from facts/science... to divorce themselves from past belief/comment:

Not long ago, Fiorina believed in climate change and supported efforts to deal with carbon pollution. On Fox News last year, Fiorina praised Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) for crafting bipartisan clean energy legislation to achieve “energy independence” and “addressing climate change as equally important goals.” Fiorina also campaigned for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in 2008 because he promised to “create a cap-and-trade system that will encourage the development of alternative energy sources.”

Fiorina has quickly dismissed her once-held climate change beliefs to satisfy the far right, science-denying wing of the conservative movement. She initially flipped, telling reporters that people need the “courage” to question climate change science. Then, she ran an ad mocking Sen. Barbara Boxer’s (D-CA) belief in climate change, with the narrator claiming that the world’s catastrophic changes in temperature are simply due to the “weather.” But now with Inhofe claiming Fiorina agrees fully with his belief that climate change is a “hoax” and that Congress must radically weaken the Clean Air Act, the metamorphosis of Fiorina into full right-wing sycophant is complete.

[Shady]

Come on, Shady, even the skeptical scientists don't doubt that CO2 is an important factor.

Just giving you the facts. A couple hundred houses out of a million. And what do these alarmists have to say about water vapour? Nothing.

[waldo]

Come on, Shady, even the skeptical scientists don't doubt that CO2 is an important factor.

it's really unfortunate the MLW ignore feature doesn't extend into quotes... if nothing else, I have an unnecessary reaffirmation that I'm missing nothing by ignoring the lil' twerp. BTW, a quick MLW search will bring forward many repeat attempts to get the intellectually dishonest Shady to respond to the very pointed questions about the medieval warming period (MWP)... questions Shady refuses to answer. Another MLW search will also bring forward past discussions concerning the denier distortion of Jones response concerning the BBC's MWP related question - of course, Shady will continue the distortion of that Jones quote... it's what Shady does - it's what he's all about. Shady <=> intellectually dishonest

Michael, why waste your time over repeated and ongoing Shady practices? He's yet to offer a single cogent argument... not one... not ever - and he never will... he's incapable of doing so.

[Michael Hardner]

Just giving you the facts. A couple hundred houses out of a million. And what do these alarmists have to say about water vapour? Nothing.

A couple of houses out of a million means nothing to a non-scientist. How about if a drop a few miligrams of radium into your cereal ? Just a little bit...

[Michael Hardner]

Michael, why waste your time over repeated and ongoing Shady practices? He's yet to offer a single cogent argument... not one... not ever - and he never will... he's incapable of doing so.

Ah well... he's not the worst poster on here... has some good points from time to time.

[waldo]

Ah well... he's not the worst poster on here... has some good points from time to time.

name one?

[Shady]

has some good points from time to time.

As do you. However, I wouldn't waste your time with Waldo. It's like talking to a brick wall. I understand the point of reducing C02, but at the same time, it's plant food. But the most important issue for me is the explanation for the medieval warming period, or other such periods.

[Michael Hardner]

As do you. However, I wouldn't waste your time with Waldo. It's like talking to a brick wall. I understand the point of reducing C02, but at the same time, it's plant food. But the most important issue for me is the explanation for the medieval warming period, or other such periods.

Scientists wonder about this too - but will it change how science views the current situation ? I doubt it.

[Shady]

Scientists wonder about this too - but will it change how science views the current situation ? I doubt it.

Probably not. I'd just prefer knowing that something that's taken place in the past, isn't taking place in the present, before we cost our economies trillions of dollars and millions of jobs, for very questionable results. But it just seems that scientists dedicated to global warming have closed the door on answering any questions regarding the past.

[waldo]

Scientists wonder about this too - but will it change how science views the current situation ? I doubt it.

whaaa!!!! The lil' twerp is still harping about the medieval warming period (MWP)... about those MWP questions he refuses to answer... about his March 15 advisement that he will work to answer the questions... but, "that will take some time to process". Shady practices allow for blustering to the point of distraction - then he ignores requests/challenges until he believes it's safe to come out from under his rock, and then he starts the whole thing over again. Shall we reminisce?

the MWP related questions Shady continues to ignore... refuses to answer... while he continues to bluster about the MWP. Yes, most certainly... Shady <=> intellectually dishonest

And regarding timestamps, in my universe,

March 15 2010 - 9:47 AM

is earlier than

March 15 2010 - 10:40 AM

. So again, I first asked you specific questions about the MWP. Please answer them. The reasons for the MWP. The contributions of those reasons might be having today, and why the MWP, according to Dr. Jones, may have actually been warmer.

in your best anal parsing, you fail to acknowledge you're not asking questions. You're making statements and asking for confirmation of those statements.

-

you stated

: And yet during the medieval period several hundred years ago, temperatures were even warmer!

-

you asked:

can you tell us why?

-

you stated

: And surely they must be able to tell us that whatever it was isn't the reason any warming may be occuring today

-

you asked:

Right?

-

you stated

: Even though it's statistically insignificant warming.

-

you stated

: And even though the medieval period was actually statistically significant.

so... in your world... you're asking 2 questions: (1) Can you tell us why? & (2) Right?... both of which, as I stated, are simply asking for confirmation of your preceding statements. Shady, back-peddler extraordinaire. C'mon, Shady... you said you've been accumulating, as you said, "a vault of information".

Here's gentle reminder #4 for you:

And yet during the medieval period several hundred years ago, temperatures were even warmer! Can you tell us why? Surely you must know. Surely your AGW heros should know as well. And surely they must be able to tell us that whatever it was isn't the reason any warming may be occuring today. Right? Even though it's statistically insignificant warming. And even though the medieval period was actually statistically significant.

- care to substantiate your claims that the MWP temperatures were warmer than today?

- care to substantiate your claims (your inference) that the MWP temperatures were not a regional phenomenon - that the MWP was global in nature?

- care to provide your premise that accounts for the current warming of today... regardless of your misunderstandings and misinformation concerning the MWP?

- care to state why you continue to hold fast to your intellectually dishonest claims that today`s warming is statistically insignificant... why you continue to act like an icehole concerning a single statement from a single scientist relative to only one of the assortment of surface temperature records available, notwithstanding corroborations from radiosondes, satellite, etc.

- care to substantiate your premise that the MWP period, regardless of your misunderstandings and misinformation concerning the MWP, presents statistically significant warming?

I definitely will. However, that will take some time to process.

[Shady]

The lil' twerp is still harping about the medieval warming period

Yep. All I'm asking for is the cause of the warming. And why even Phil Jones said that it was likely warmer then, than now. I don't know that answers. So I can't post them, even though I wish that I could. You however insist you know everything.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Didn't Phil Jones says that the temperatures were just short of showing significant increase ? In other words, no increase but no cooling either ?

He said there was no statistically significant warming over the last 10 years but there was over the last 20, it not statistically significant over the last decade because they don't have enough data points to show it's not just random chance the data came out that way. THe change in temp is about 0.13 degrees C.

Here's the wiki on statistically significant. My link

They're both importrant, but both driven by the inclusion or exclusion of Pinatubo (cooling event during late 1990 or early 1991) or the super El Niño (warming event 1997-8). But the 1000 year measurements don't show warming.

Not actually true. My link

I'm still waiting for the alarmist explanation for the medieval warming period. Even Phil Jones has admitted that the warming then probably exceeds any warming that he's noticed presently. Fact: The earth has been much warmer in the past. Many times over. But somehow alarmists like to pin things today to a microscopic fraction of an increase, to a microscopic portion of the composed atomsphere.

I'm still waiting for someone to show the medieval warming period was a global event not a local one.

If the atmosphere was made up of a million houses. CO2 would be equivalent to a couple hundred houses. Out of a million houses!

That's the stupidest analogy I've ever heard. First off CO2's concentration is 392.94 parts per million, making is almost 400 houses not "a couple hundred" Second Ozone only has to make up 40 parts per billion before it starts to have adverse health effects. 85 to 104 ppb are described as "unhealthy for sensitive groups", 105 ppb to 124 ppb as "unhealthy" and 125 ppb to 404 ppb as "very unhealthy". It doesn't take a lot of certain substances to do a lot.

Yep. All I'm asking for is the cause of the warming. And why even Phil Jones said that it was likely warmer then, than now. I don't know that answers. So I can't post them, even though I wish that I could. You however insist you know everything.

No Shady he didn't.

G - There is a debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was global or not. If it were to be conclusively shown that it was a global phenomenon, would you accept that this would undermine the premise that mean surface atmospheric temperatures during the latter part of the 20th Century were unprecedented?

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

My link

Edited June 12, 2010 by TrueMetis

[Shady]

He said there was no statistically significant warming over the last 10 years but there was over the last 20

No. He said there was no statistically significant warming over the last 15 years. But I'm not sure why 15 years can't be trusted. But 20 years is completely trustworthy.

I'm still waiting for someone to show the medieval warming period was a global event not a local one.

The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia

Hmm. North America, the North Atlantic, Europe and parts of Asia. Sounds pretty global to me! And isn't the reason why the term global warming was switched to climate change because not everywhere would actually see warming? Are you now switching it back?

No Shady he didn't.

Yes he did.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now

Link

[Guest TrueMetis]

No. He said there was no statistically significant warming over the last 15 years. But I'm not sure why 15 years can't be trusted. But 20 years is completely trustworthy.

It's actually 14 and 21 years. Try reading the wiki on statistically significant to understand why one is statistically significant and the other isn't.

Hmm. North America, the North Atlantic, Europe and parts of Asia. Sounds pretty global to me! And isn't the reason why the term global warming was switched to climate change because not everywhere would actually see warming? Are you now switching it back?

That's not even half of the world. Or do you consider the entire southren hemisphere not part of the world?

Yes he did.

So the "possibility" is the same as "likely" now?

Try reading what he actually says.

‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html#ixzz0qgP8mXdq

So Shady where does he say is is likely? The possibility doesn't mean anything as anything is possible.