Global Warming backdown

[TimG]

What does this have to do with the topic?

Those are my words. LeeRain is a spammer who grabs random quotes from previous posts and adds links. I would delete your post to avoid encouraging them. Edited July 26, 2010 by TimG

[lukin]

Pffft

Pffft.......excellent response. You see how the green boys skewer the truth to take advantage of the average citizen. You need to wake up waldo. The green boys are playing you like a cheap fiddle.

[jbg]

Those are my words. LeeRain is a spammer who grabs random quotes from previous posts and adds links. I would delete your post to avoid encouraging them.

I thought I recognized the verbiage.

[waldo]

from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration... their annual report, based entirely on observations and measurements, "State of the Climate in 2009":

-

highlights

-

full report & supplemental and summary materials

The 2009 State of the Climate report released today draws on data for 10 key climate indicators that all point to the same finding: the scientific evidence that our world is warming is unmistakable. More than 300 scientists from 160 research groups in 48 countries contributed to the report, which confirms that the past decade was the warmest on record and that the Earth has been growing warmer over the last 50 years.

Based on comprehensive data from multiple sources, the report defines 10 measurable planet-wide features used to gauge global temperature changes. The relative movement of each of these indicators proves consistent with a warming world. Seven indicators are rising: air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and tropospheric temperature in the “active-weather” layer of the atmosphere closest to the Earth’s surface. Three indicators are declining: Arctic sea ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern hemisphere.

key indicators

[waldo]

CO2 is NOT a pollutant.

- not according to the U.S. Supreme Court

- not according to the EPA, now obligated by the aforementioned U.S. Supreme Court ruling to follow it's mandate/obligations under the Clean Air Act

- not according to the EPA that has now just recently released it's Endangerment & Cause or Contribute Findings

- not according to the EPA that is now meandering down the legal battle towards regulation

in keeping with the precise and thorough U.S. EPA Endangerment Finding for CO2 (and other GHGs), the EPA announced it has denied all 10 petitions seeking to rescind it's endangerment finding:

Denial of Petitions for Reconsideration of the Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act

EPA determined in December 2009 that climate change caused by emissions of greenhouse gases threatens the public's health and the environment. Since then, EPA received ten petitions challenging this determination. On July 29, 2010, EPA denied these petitions.

The petitions to reconsider EPA's "Endangerment Finding" claimed that climate science can't be trusted, and asserted a conspiracy that calls into question the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program. After months of serious consideration of the petitions and of the state of climate change science, EPA found no evidence to support these claims.

The scientific evidence supporting EPA's finding is robust, voluminous, and compelling. Climate change is happening now, and humans are contributing to it. Multiple lines of evidence show a global warming trend over the past 100 years. Beyond this, melting ice in the Arctic, melting glaciers around the world, increasing ocean temperatures, rising sea levels, altered precipitation patterns, and shifting patterns of ecosystems and wildlife habitats all confirm that our climate is changing.

the responses to the petitions are most complete... a veritable line item by line item refutation of the latest and greatest denier talking points.

(on edit: updated reference links (i.e., changed http addressing))

Edited September 24, 2012 by waldo

[Keepitsimple]

An interesting summary of the various Global Temperature measurement systems by Ross McKittrick. Following is the summary from his 73 page report.

Summary

There are three main global temperature histories: the combined CRU-Hadley record (HADCRU), the

NASA-GISS (GISTEMP) record, and the NOAA record. All three global averages depend on the same underlying land data archive, the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN). CRU and GISS supplement it with a small amount of additional data. Because of this reliance on GHCN, its quality deficiencies will constrain the quality of all derived products.

The number of weather stations providing data to GHCN plunged in 1990 and again in 2005. The sample

size has fallen by over 75% from its peak in the early 1970s, and is now smaller than at any time since

1919. The collapse in sample size has not been spatially uniform. It has increased the relative fraction of data coming from airports to about 50 percent (up from about 30 percent in the 1970s). It has also reduced the average latitude of source data and removed relatively more high-altitude monitoring sites.

GHCN applies adjustments to try and correct for sampling discontinuities. These have tended to increase

the warming trend over the 20th century. After 1990 the magnitude of the adjustments (positive and

negative) gets implausibly large. CRU has stated that about 98 percent of its input data are from GHCN. GISS also relies on GHCN with some additional US data from the USHCN network, and some additional Antarctic data sources. NOAA relies entirely on the GHCN network.

Oceanic data are based on sea surface temperature (SST) rather than marine air temperature (MAT). All

three global products rely on SST series derived from the ICOADS archive, though the Hadley Centre

switched to a real time network source after 1998, which may have caused a jump in that series. ICOADS

observations were primarily obtained from ships that voluntarily monitored SST. Prior to the post-war

era, coverage of the southern oceans and polar regions was very thin. Coverage has improved partly due

to deployment of buoys, as well as use of satellites to support extrapolation. Ship-based readings changed over the 20th century from bucket-and-thermometer to engine-intake methods, leading to a warm bias as the new readings displaced the old. Until recently it was assumed that bucket methods disappeared after 1941, but this is now believed not to be the case, which may necessitate a major revision to the 20th century ocean record. Adjustments for equipment changes, trends in ship height, etc., have been large and are subject to continuing uncertainties. Relatively few studies have compared SST and MAT in places where both are available. There is evidence that SST trends overstate nearby MAT trends.

Processing methods to create global averages differ slightly among different groups, but they do not seem to make major differences, given the choice of input data. After 1980 the SST products have not trended upwards as much as land air temperature averages. The quality of data over land, namely the raw temperature data in GHCN, depends on the validity of adjustments for known problems due to urbanization and land-use change. The adequacy of these adjustments has been tested in three different ways, with two of the three finding evidence that they do not suffice to remove warming biases.

The overall conclusion of this report is that there are serious quality problems in the surface temperature data sets that call into question whether the global temperature history, especially over land, can be considered both continuous and precise. Users should be aware of these limitations, especially in policysensitive applications.

Link: http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/surfacetempreview.pdf

[waldo]

An interesting summary of the various Global Temperature measurement systems by Ross McKittrick. Following is the summary from his 73 page report.

Link: http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/surfacetempreview.pdf

same ole, same ole

right off the top... we've already addressed the station dropout concern on MLW, several times now... why, Simple, it's been one of the dead horses you continue to flog. Studies have been done that show, categorically, no bias was introduced by the purposeful streamlining of stations (the so-called 1990 'station drop-out). McKitrick continues on with a presumptive bias labeling attributed to a stated disproportionate number of southern latitude stations... hey now... I do believe the most significant warming has occurred in the most northern latitudes As for McKitrick's described "adjustments for sampling discontinuities", again, study after study has dispelled any existence of induced warming or bias attributed to adjustments - and, again Simple, we've touched upon many of those within earlier MLW threads/posts, principally due to your continued parroting of your favoured TV weathermen's false and unsubstantiated claims against the surface temperature record.

of course, the lack of any real credibility to McKitrick's latest gish gallop becomes most evident from his 'papers' statement advising that:

This is a preliminary version of a report to be published in fall 2010 by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (

http://thegwpf.org/

) London, UK.

ya, ya... why would McKitrick actually bother attempting to publish something... so... brazenly false and unsubstantiated, within an actual peer reviewed scientific journal! Why bother to attempt to do that when he has the handy skeptic/denier's go-to, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)

The director of the GWPF, headquartered in a room rented from the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, is Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool's John Moores University, who has argued concern about climate change has reached "near hysteria".

Its board of trustees includes Lord Barnett, a former vice-chairman of the BBC who voted against the Climate Change Bill, and the Bishop of Chester, who has argued there was no consensus among climate change scientists that "carbon dioxide levels are the key determinant".

Its academic advisory council includes Prof Ian Plimer, an Australian who argues volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans. "Some of those names are straight from the Who's Who of current climate change sceptics", said Ward. "To me, this is pretty much indistinguishable from the websites that are run by rightwing, free-market think tanks in the US.

It's just going to be a way of pumping material into the debate that hasn't been through scrutiny

".

[waldo]

Change our ways in the next 5-10 years or we are doomed! There is no rational thought behind articles like these......and there is no sense in debating people who believe them. Shameless alarmism.

is this simply more, uhhh... "shameless alarmism" - hey, Simple?

in a new Nature publication, Dalhousie scientists find a 40% decline in phytoplankton since 1950 linked to the rise in ocean sea surface temperatures.

Plankton, base of ocean food web, in big decline

Half a million datapoints dating to 1899 show that plant plankton levels in nearly all of the world's oceans started to drop in the 1950s. The biggest changes are in the Arctic, southern and equatorial Atlantic and equatorial Pacific oceans.

Virginia Burkett, the chief climate change scientist for U.S. Geological Survey, said the plankton numbers are worrisome and show problems that can't be seen just by watching bigger more charismatic species like dolphins or whales.

"These tiny species are indicating that large-scale changes in the ocean are affecting the primary productivity of the planet," said Burkett, who wasn't involved in the study.

[WIP]

is this simply more, uhhh... "shameless alarmism" - hey, Simple?

in a new Nature publication, Dalhousie scientists find a 40% decline in phytoplankton since 1950 linked to the rise in ocean sea surface temperatures.

Plankton, base of ocean food web, in big decline

Now, this is an ominous sign because plankton feeds everything that's in the oceans. Less plankton = lower oxygen levels. Factor in increasing ocean acidification and it looks like we could have the anoxic ocean conditions that killed off 95% of sea life during the Permian/Triassic Extinction. Paleontologist Peter Ward, predicts in his book "Under A Green Sky" that if present trends continue, CO2 levels will be at 1000 ppm by the end of this century -- equaling carbon levels at the height of the PT extinction, and occurring at at least one hundred times as fast. Our grandchildren may witness dying oceans and have to contemplate human extinction also, if nothing is done to stop this lemming march now!

[Pliny]

in a new Nature publication, Dalhousie scientists find a 40% decline in phytoplankton since 1950 linked to the rise in ocean sea surface temperatures.

Plankton, base of ocean food web, in big decline

With the exception of the sixties and seventies which suffered from the coming ice age.

[jbg]

With the exception of the sixties and seventies which suffered from the coming ice age.

Yeah. What a joke.

[Guest TrueMetis]

With the exception of the sixties and seventies which suffered from the coming ice age.

Even though most scientists at that time where predicting a warming, and the magazines that claimed an ice age (which weren't science magazines) needed to make up quotes to get the story.

[waldo]

Change our ways in the next 5-10 years or we are doomed! There is no rational thought behind articles like these......and there is no sense in debating people who believe them. Shameless alarmism.

is this simply more, uhhh... "shameless alarmism" - hey, Simple?

in a new Nature publication, Dalhousie scientists find a 40% decline in phytoplankton since 1950 linked to the rise in ocean sea surface temperatures.

Plankton, base of ocean food web, in big decline

Half a million datapoints dating to 1899 show that plant plankton levels in nearly all of the world's oceans started to drop in the 1950s. The biggest changes are in the Arctic, southern and equatorial Atlantic and equatorial Pacific oceans.

Virginia Burkett, the chief climate change scientist for U.S. Geological Survey, said the plankton numbers are worrisome and show problems that can't be seen just by watching bigger more charismatic species like dolphins or whales.

"These tiny species are indicating that large-scale changes in the ocean are affecting the primary productivity of the planet," said Burkett, who wasn't involved in the study.

With the exception of the sixties and seventies which suffered from the coming ice age.

Yeah. What a joke.

ya, ya... given your denier predilections, maybe you two dimbulbs could step-up and actually show where the 70's ice-age/cooling meme actually originated... (60's, Pliny? Really? Is this something you're championing on your own?)

here's a little sumthin, sumthin, to tide you over: The Myth Of The 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

[Pliny]

ya, ya... given your denier predilections, maybe you two dimbulbs could step-up and actually show where the 70's ice-age/cooling meme actually originated... (60's, Pliny? Really? Is this something you're championing on your own?)

here's a little sumthin, sumthin, to tide you over: The Myth Of The 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus

Cool! And in the 2030's they will come out with the myth of AGW.

Global cooling was what politicians wanted at the time and today they want global warming - caused by humans. In the eighties it was the depletion of the ozone that was the alarmist trend. What's the myth of that one, Waldo? Did it just go away or did we solve it or do we still have a problem with it or did it get melded in with the AGW theory?

Technology is changing things so fast these days. It is hard to keep up with what the next alarmist death knell is. Not to worry - all will end in Dec 2012. I think Pope Gore is making the documentary as we speak!

[Guest TrueMetis]

Cool! And in the 2030's they will come out with the myth of AGW.

Global cooling was what politicians wanted at the time and today they want global warming - caused by humans. In the eighties it was the depletion of the ozone that was the alarmist trend. What's the myth of that one, Waldo? Did it just go away or did we solve it or do we still have a problem with it or did it get melded in with the AGW theory?

Technology is changing things so fast these days. It is hard to keep up with what the next alarmist death knell is. Not to worry - all will end in Dec 2012. I think Pope Gore is making the documentary as we speak!

So what, are you saying thousands of scientists across dozens of countries got to get to invent AGW? That's one hell of a conspiracy. Is it all being controlled by the Freemasons to?

In the eighties it was the depletion of the ozone that was the alarmist trend. What's the myth of that one, Waldo? Did it just go away or did we solve it or do we still have a problem with it or did it get melded in with the AGW theory?

Because we banned most CFC's it's regenerating.

Pliny stop trying to take science, you clearly aren't qualified to do it.

[Bonam]

Global cooling was what politicians wanted at the time and today they want global warming - caused by humans. In the eighties it was the depletion of the ozone that was the alarmist trend. What's the myth of that one, Waldo? Did it just go away or did we solve it or do we still have a problem with it or did it get melded in with the AGW theory?

The use of CFCs, which were the main cause of ozone depletion, was drastically reduced. Today, the ozone is regenerating, and will continue to do so over the next several decades. So yes, we "solved" it.

[TimG]

The use of CFCs, which were the main cause of ozone depletion, was drastically reduced. Today, the ozone is regenerating, and will continue to do so over the next several decades. So yes, we "solved" it.

Actually, the science of CFCs is as dubious as the science of CO2. It is quite possible that the ozone hole has 70 year cycles like other atomospheric phenomena and the hole is simply fixing itself. It will take another 50 years to determine whether we really had an effect on the ozone or if this was a case of enviro-panic of over nothing that cost billions. Edited August 9, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

The use of CFCs, which were the main cause of ozone depletion, was drastically reduced. Today, the ozone is regenerating, and will continue to do so over the next several decades. So yes, we "solved" it.

Actually, the science of CFCs is as dubious as the science of CO2. It is quite possible that the ozone hole has 70 year cycles like other atomospheric phenomena and the hole is simply fixing itself. It will take another 50 years to determine whether we really had an effect on the ozone or if this was a case of enviro-panic of over nothing that cost billions.

oh pleeeeese! But thanks for the hook to drive home another parallel... between common skeptic/denier strategies and practice used throughout the ozone and climate change issues.

The Skeptics vs. the Ozone Hole

Techniques of the Skeptics

- Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence.

- Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.

- Find and pay a respected scientist to argue persuasively against the threat.

- Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don't publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view.

- Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your point of view as scientific fact.

- Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken.

- Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the global evidence.

- Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding.

- Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.

- Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage.

- Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.

- Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects.

Conclusion

In a 1984 interview in The New Yorker, Rowland concluded, "Nothing will be done about this problem until there is further evidence that a significant loss of ozone has occurred. Unfortunately, this means that if there is a disaster in the making in the stratosphere we are probably not going to avoid it." These prophetic words were proved true the very next year with the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole. Luckily, it appears that serious damage to the planet was averted with the swift implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Unfortunately, it appears that we have not learned our lesson from the past 30 years' experience with the ozone-CFC debate. Once again, we find a theory that has wide support in the scientific community being attacked by a handful of skeptics, publishing outside of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, their voices greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations and politicians sympathetic to them. The skeptics have trotted out the same bag of tricks used in the CFC-ozone depletion debate, this time to delay any response to the threat of global warming. And once again, it will likely take a disaster to change things--unless we wise up to their tricks.

[waldo]

recently released, from the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science:

Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia Committee on Stabilization Targets for Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Concentrations

Emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels have ushered in a new epoch where human activities will largely determine the evolution of Earth's climate. Because carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe. Emissions reductions decisions made today matter in determining impacts experienced not just over the next few decades, but in the coming centuries and millennia.

According to Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts Over Decades to Millennia, important policy decisions can be informed by recent advances in climate science that quantify the relationships between increases in carbon dioxide and global warming, related climate changes, and resulting impacts, such as changes in streamflow, wildfires, crop productivity, extreme hot summers, and sea level rise. One way to inform these choices is to consider the projected climate changes and impacts that would occur if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were stabilized at a particular concentration level. The book quantifies the outcomes of different stabilization targets for greenhouse gas concentrations using analyses and information drawn from the scientific literature. Although it does not recommend or justify any particular stabilization target, it does provide important scientific insights about the relationships among emissions, greenhouse gas concentrations, temperatures, and impacts.

Climate Stabilization Targets emphasizes the importance of 21st century choices regarding long-term climate stabilization. It is a useful resource for scientists, educators and policy makers, among others.

[Pliny]

So what, are you saying thousands of scientists across dozens of countries got to get to invent AGW? That's one hell of a conspiracy. Is it all being controlled by the Freemasons to?

As you know I am not a fan of conspiracy theories. The UN is pushing it and it's the same people behind it. There is no conspiracy. The UNEP and the UNCC are all interested in ensuring we understand their position and that it is they who can best influence global development for the collective good through international treaties and agreements. Only they understand the pressing nature of our development and it's environmental impact. Who else collects, collates analyzes, makes recommendations and distributes this information?

Thousands of scientists may not be wrong about GW but there is still some debate as to whether it is anthropogenic in nature.

Because we banned most CFC's it's regenerating.

That would be a real success story for the Montreal accord and the UNEP. Maurice Strong should be proud. Actually I don't think all the evidence is in on that one yet.

Pliny stop trying to take science, you clearly aren't qualified to do it.

I am not a scientist but I am well aware of how politics uses science and it is not beyond economic perversion either. Because scientists are human science has the same frailties.

Edited August 9, 2010 by Pliny

[Pliny]

The use of CFCs, which were the main cause of ozone depletion, was drastically reduced. Today, the ozone is regenerating, and will continue to do so over the next several decades. So yes, we "solved" it.

I would say "solving it" is perhaps a premature assumption.

[waldo]

Who else collects, collates analyzes, makes recommendations and distributes this information?

Pliny, your fixation on the IPCC/UN has you missing the bigger picture in terms of the "who else"... how about the USGCRP, EAA, the National Academies, the NRC, the scientific academies of world-wide countries, scientific organizations, etc., etc., etc.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Actually, the science of CFCs is as dubious as the science of CO2. It is quite possible that the ozone hole has 70 year cycles like other atomospheric phenomena and the hole is simply fixing itself. It will take another 50 years to determine whether we really had an effect on the ozone or if this was a case of enviro-panic of over nothing that cost billions.

Holy crap, you guys will say anything.

Only they understand the pressing nature of our development and it's environmental impact. Who else collects, collates analyzes, makes recommendations and distributes this information?

Thousands of scientists from hundreds of organizations and universities.

Thousands of scientists may not be wrong about GW but there is still some debate as to whether it is anthropogenic in nature.

To bad that's what the evidence points to and what most scientists are saying.

That would be a real success story for the Montreal accord and the UNEP. Maurice Strong should be proud. Actually I don't think all the evidence is in on that one yet.

Uh ya actually it is. We had this one figured out, CFC's screw up the ozone layer there is no (credible) denying that.

I am not a scientist but I am well aware of how politics uses science and it is not beyond economic perversion either. Because scientists are human science has the same frailties.

That is true, but those scientists tend to be on the smoking doesn't cause cancer, homeopathy works, chiropractic practices works, the earth is cooling, the earth isn't warming, okay the earth is warming but it's natural, okay it's not natural but we can't stop it, okay we can stop it but it would cost to much. Side of things. Not the side that's actually doing research in credible universities.

I'm not a scientist either, but unlike you I look at the actually studies, I don't read the IPCC report I prefer to go with the original studies. When I read an article or watch a Youtube video I look at all the sources provided, and if sources aren't provided I throw that piece of media on the rubbish pile.

[TimG]

That is true, but those scientists tend to be on the smoking doesn't cause cancer, homeopathy works, chiropractic practices works

One of my pet peeves are people who don't understand that not all fields of science are equal. When it comes to something like smoking we have millions of individual test subjects that smoked and contracted cancer. This means the statistical link between smoking and cancer is extremely strong. It also means that we know exactly what the consequences of the cancer is (i.e. it is generally not benign).

We do not have millions of test subjects when it comes to climate. We have one. This makes it impossible to seperate the human effect from all of the other confounding factors. We also do not really know what the consequence of climate change will be. It could be benign but we have no real data to tell us.

To be comparable to climate science we would have to go back to 1600s when people first started smoking regularily. A climate scientist would be equivalent to a doctor predicting deaths by cancer long before any smoker got sick.

[Guest TrueMetis]

We do not have millions of test subjects when it comes to climate. We have one. This makes it impossible to seperate the human effect from all of the other confounding factors. We also do not really know what the consequence of climate change will be. It could be benign but we have no real data to tell us.

Climate science doesn't depend on testing subjects. It depends on testing the data, and there is more than one set of data, and thousands of ways to test that date.

Climate science is using dozens of proxy data sets in addition to the current record and all of them (with the exemption of tree rings for the last 50 or so years) say the same thing.

Edited August 9, 2010 by TrueMetis