Global Warming - Science's Double-Standard ?

[Michael Hardner]

No, it isn't! Especially not when there is definite trend line heading in one direction. Here's another reason why you should worry more about record highs than record lows: US Record High Temperatures Double Record Lows Over Past Decade

Ok. Well that implies that "counting" record highs vs lows is a valid way to determine the overall picture.

If that is the case then a record low is a score, albeit for the losing team.

Maybe that's a way that we could get the masses to follow trending without having to read literature....

Edited July 20, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[eyeball]

Actually, there is a bit of mystery because climate scientists cannot find all of that energy which was supposedly trapped by CO2. They can't find it in the atmosphere or the oceans and now they are speculating that it somehow made it into the deep ocean without anyone noticing.

Joe D'Aleo, a meteorologist who co-founded The Weather Channel, disagrees, too. He says oceans are entering a cooling cycle that will lower temperatures.

So your experts are saying the oceans are warming and shady's says they're cooling. Is this lack of consensus something I should be concerned about?

The missing energy can only be going to space. The most likely explaination is cloud cover changes increased the amount of the sun's energy being reflected back to space.

Do you have proof of this?

What do you think Shady?

[Pliny]

It should be snowing now according to the believers in the solar cycle theory.

Unheard of...

Snow in July

[waldo]

What do you think Shady?

oh snap! Shady's on the run... as he's certainly never expressed an original, non-parroted thought throughout any climate change related threads! What does Shady think??? Oh my - good one, eyeball!

[TimG]

Do you have proof of this?

YOu asked for it:

An NPR report on a UCAR press release:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.

Pielke Sr. comments on that release:

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/03/19/comments-on-the-npr-story-by-richard-harris-entitled-the-mystery-of-global-warmings-missing-heat/

This is denial of the obvious. The observed absence of heat accumulation (of Joules) in the upper ocean (and in the troposphere) for the last four years means that there has been NO global warming in these climate metrics during this time period.

A graph that shows how much heat is missing:

http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/04/in-released-cru-emails-ncar-climate.html

[waldo]

YOu asked for it:

ha! As much as it's always a treat to read the 'honest broker' trying to vindicate his pa... you linked to a Pielke Sr. comment... where he also offers up a (broken) link to one of his 2003 papers. Proof? Really? Of what?

I've read summary/analysis of the Trenberth paper... read the email exchanges on the Pielke Sr. blog. Trenberth's focus seems to be entirely on ocean analysis - on confirming the heat is there, or not there... perhaps I've missed the emphasis on the suggested (npr authors quote) reference about the 'heat probably going out into space'. Trenberth might have made the comment - he might 'believe' that if he can't find the heat in the ocean... "it must then be going out into space". I just don't see that being stated in anything he's written (that I've read). Additionally, Willis presses the point on uncertainty... insists on the need for satellite confirmation... and doesn't agree with Pielke's assessment on model-to-observation disparity.

(by the by - should I (again) mention my previous post concerning the NASA position and its sponsored study that leans toward land (Northern forests) - here: just sayin)

[Shady]

who actually compares satellite-to-surface measurements in this manner?

Now you're just hedging your bets because you know you're wrong. You still haven't backed up your mathematical assertions.

Edited July 20, 2010 by Shady

[TimG]

Additionally, Willis presses the point on uncertainty... insists on the need for satellite confirmation... and doesn't agree with Pielke's assessment on model-to-observation disparity.

Willis claims there are models that reproduced the variability but Pielke says he can't find any and actually references a peer reviewed study which shows the models made no such predictions.

http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/comment-on-weblog-by-josh-willis-titled-josh-willis-on-climate-change-global-warming-is-real/

mention my previous post concerning the NASA position and its sponsored study that leans toward land

CO2 sinks have absolutely nothing to do with this issue.

[waldo]

your earlier link to Jr's site provided a link to Sr's site; one that showed a good dialogue exchange between Pielke and Willis... rather than Pielke speculating and offering up a cursory assessment of Willis' findings, why didn't/doesn't he just ask Willis?

yes... the NASA link mentioned as follow-up to Willis' (and Trenberth's) call for increased precision on satellite analysis/confirmation on ocean measurements - in common reference to imbalance analysis and pending wants on OCO-2 satellite

[waldo]

How about you do the calculations and then get back to me? Because your assertions don't match reality, or in this case, basic math.

all you did is find some denier talking point and parrot it - per your usual self. Notwithstanding, of course, the D'Aleo quote you so fixated on, includes two distinctly different values, one Centigrade and the other Fahrenheit... without properly qualifying either. The reality you speak to is one that has you with no idea how satellite measurements are arrived at, that has you with no idea how satellite measurements become 'temperature', and that has you with no idea how satellite measurements historically compare, rather, are properly compared to surface temperature recordings. You fail to understand that there is no direct correlation of anomalies, surface vs. satellite... there is no legitimacy in a direct comparison of anomalies - the numbers do not match - they have never matched. There is no literal direct comparison - what is compared, is the relative trends and in that regard the comparison is legitimate and sound. Of course, that doesn't stop D'Aleo from not only mixing temperature scales (for effect) but also passing off a comparison he makes as a legitimate one. He certainly knows it is not - but that's never stopped D'Aleo/Watts in their relentless, yet unfounded, attack against the integrity of the surface temperature record. We've spoken on this many, many times over, through various threads... usually the thread posting references originated by Simple as he parroted his favourite TV weathermen!

you pompously declare 'unbiased NASA satellite measurements', while your historic past has been to cast NASA, repeatedly, as a biased outlet manufacturing your oft mentioned 'cooked data'. Of course, you also fail to recognize just who (what group) has presented that D'Aleo quoted satellite number - hint: yes, they're NASA satellites, but they're anything but NASA employees presenting that number. More to the point, there's been a mix of NOAA satellites into that NASA satellite grouping... so, effectively, you're challenging the veracity of mixed NASA/NOAA satellite measurements versus NOAA processed surface temperature data. Notwithstanding, of course, your illegitimate comparison method (surface-to-satellite) in the first place. But really, c'mon... none of this makes any sense to you anyway - parrots don't actually need to understand the basic fundamentals - hey?

but really... nothing new here - simply another of the long tired history of Shady practices.

Now you're just hedging your bets because you know you're wrong. You still haven't backed up your mathematical assertions.

there were no "mathematical assertions" made. However, I will assert that you are a complete idiot - one not worth bothering with... so... back on ignore you go.

[WIP]

Ok. Well that implies that "counting" record highs vs lows is a valid way to determine the overall picture.

I would say that twice as many record highs as record lows is significant of a larger trend.

If that is the case then a record low is a score, albeit for the losing team.

Maybe that's a way that we could get the masses to follow trending without having to read literature....

I believe that any issue that is highly technical places it at a level where the layman has to consult with the consensus of expert opinion in an attempt to understand what is going on -- and not with the oddball heretic scientist who says he knows more than all of his colleagues on the other side. To me, this is similar to the evolution/creation debates, in that there have been a number of creationist mathematicians, such as William Dembske, who can produce complex information theories to prove intelligent design -- which are more designed to muddle up the debate with arguments around math and statistics....much as what's going on here with Tim G, and Shady, who can access statistical data designed to baffle everyone who doesn't understand statistics, but cannot explain why CO2 levels are rising ever faster; how rising CO2 can have no effect on climate or why they think increasing ocean acidification is a problem; why the entire world has undergone the warmest first six months of any year in recorded history; why polar ice and land-based glaciers are shrinking; why tropical glaciers are disappearing...the last one in Indonesia is about to disappear entirely in the next few years....I could go on if I had some notes in front of me; the point is that there is a convergence of evidence from all sides that indicate climate change and global warming. The critics pick apart at specific aspects of data they think are weak, and try to sow confusion, just as the critics of evolution could pick at specific aspects of fossil evidence, but had no over-arching creation theory to explain the fossil, DNA, and morphological evidence in favour of evolution.

The strategy of the oil-funded global warming skeptics is a mirror image of the evolution critics: they offer no alternative theories to explain the evidence, and make an assortment of contradictory arguments....some like Bjorn Lomborg, are even arguing against action, rather than against evidence for climate change.

[TimG]

what's going on here with Tim G, and Shady, who can access statistical data designed to baffle everyone who doesn't understand statistics

No more baffling than the statiscal crap that gets published in peer reviewed journals and used by the IPCC.

> but cannot explain why CO2 levels are rising ever faster;

CO2 levels are rising because China is expanding its energy consumption at a fantastic rate.

> how rising CO2 can have no effect on climate

Rising CO2 does indeed affect climate. The real question is whether can do anything about it even if we wanted to.

> why they think increasing ocean acidification is a problem;

CO2 levels have been much higher in the past. Species adapt. Those that don't can't be helped.

> why the entire world has undergone the warmest first six months of any year in recorded history

Recorded history is 150 years. We know temperatures have been much higher in the past 10000 years.

> why polar ice and land-based glaciers are shrinking

Because the planet is warming. That does not mean there is a catastrophe coming

> the point is that there is a convergence of evidence from all sides that indicate climate change and global warming

Yet you have abolutely no evidence that climate change is necessarily bad.

This debate is not about the science because science cannot dictate what policies we adopt. The only reason science gets dragged into the discussion is because people like WIP think they can bully non-scientific people into accepting economically disasterous policies if they baffle them with statistics.

Edited July 20, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

> why they think increasing ocean acidification is a problem;

CO2 levels have been much higher in the past. Species adapt. Those that don't can't be helped.

Almost no species can adapt that fast.

[TimG]

Almost no species can adapt that fast.

So where is your evidence to back up such an expansive claim?

[Guest TrueMetis]

So where is your evidence to back up such an expansive claim?

An understanding of the massive timescales evolution uses and seeing that ocean acidification is happening quite rapidly.

[TimG]

An understanding of the massive timescales evolution uses and seeing that ocean acidification is happening quite rapidly.

Based on what data? The changes to ocean PH have not even exceed natural variability to date. There is also no easy formula for predicting PH changes based on CO2 increases because the ocean is a huge buffer. We also have no data for PH changes with the time resolution of a few decades so we have no way to know if similar changes have not occurred in the past. You statement is nothing but unsupported speculation. Edited July 20, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

Based on what data? The changes to ocean PH have not even exceed natural variability to date. There is also no easy formula for predicting PH changes based on CO2 increases because the ocean is a huge buffer. We also have no data for PH changes with the time resolution of a few decades so we have no way to know if similar changes have not occurred in the past. You statement is nothing but unsupported speculation.

I now the Ph of the ocean has changed by −0.075 since the industrial revolution and CO2 is increasing more rapidly. I also know that plankton, one of the most important parts, if not the most important part, of ocean food chain is incredibly sensitive to the Ph of the water they live in. To large a change will kill them a slight one decreases there ability to reproduce by a large degree so even a slight change in ocean Ph could have huge consequences.

I also now how buffers work and that they can only keep Ph in a range for so long and once that range is exceeded the Ph will change very rapidly.

[TimG]

I now the Ph of the ocean has changed by −0.075 since the industrial revolution and CO2 is increasing more rapidly.

An amount that has yet to exceed natural variability which is at least 0.5: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WOA05_GLODAP_pd_pH_AYool.png

I also know that plankton, one of the most important parts, if not the most important part, of ocean food chain is incredibly sensitive to the Ph of the water they live in.

If that was true ocean life would have died out long ago. The fact is there are many types of planktons. Some are more sensitive than others. Others are more suited for a lower PH environment and will thrive even as their cousins decline. In fact, there have been studies on coral which show exactly this kind of species replacement action.

I also now how buffers work and that they can only keep Ph in a range for so long and once that range is exceeded the Ph will change very rapidly.

Well we know the Ph varies on its own by as much as 0.5 so it will take a lot more than that to adversely affect the ocean's ability to buffer the stuff. Edited July 20, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

An amount that has yet to exceed natural variability which is at least 0.5: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WOA05_GLODAP_pd_pH_AYool.png

And what about specific places, that may be the natural variability for the entire ocean but most individual areas don't see that kind of variation and a slight change could have a huge impact that could spread.

If that was true ocean life would have died out long ago. The fact is there are many types of planktons. Some are more sensitive than others. Others are more suited for a lower PH environment and will thrive even as their cousins decline. In fact, there have been studies on coral which show exactly this kind of species replacement action.

Most change to climate and the world happen much more slowly than current ocean acidification. The times it has happened rapidly have seen the majority of the species on the planet wiped out. It would seem I have history on my side.

Well we know the Ph varies on its own by as much as 0.5 so it will take a lot more than that to adversely affect the ocean's ability to buffer the stuff.

Again that is for the entire ocean individual areas have less variation, different buffers and different Ph's. So what is a slight effect overall could wipe out some areas.

[TimG]

And what about specific places, that may be the natural variability for the entire ocean but most individual areas don't see that kind of variation and a slight change could have a huge impact that could spread.

The same scale of variation occurs between summer and winter. All organisms in the ocean today need to be able to tolerate changes in Ph of at least 0.5 since that is what their natural environment is doing all of the time anyways.

The times it has happened rapidly have seen the majority of the species on the planet wiped out. It would seem I have history on my side.

No you don't because there is zero evidence that shows a causal link between the two.

Again that is for the entire ocean individual areas have less variation, different buffers and different Ph's. So what is a slight effect overall could wipe out some areas.

Again, the history of the world tells me that nature is not some fragile crystal that shatters at the slightest breeze. This history is much more compelling that your completely unsubstaniated speculations based on the premise that the current changes are happening 'too fast for adaptation'. Edited July 21, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

The same scale of variation occurs between summer and winter. All organisms in the ocean today need to be able to tolerate changes in Ph of at least 0.5 since that is what their natural environment is doing all of the time anyways.

Site your source.

No you don't because there is zero evidence that shows a causal link between the two.

Are you really denying that during times of rapid climate change there have been mass extinctions? Really?

Let's look at the five largest extinction events in history.

Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, most likely caused by a meteor which caused rapid global cooling.

Triassic–Jurassic extinction event, Probably a volcano that cause either a sudden warming or cooling of the earth.

Permian–Triassic extinction event, the exact reason for this one is unknown but all the hypothesis' involve climate change.

Late Devonian extinction, believed to be an Anoxic event. Anoxic events are connected to, you guessed climate change.

Ordovician–Silurian extinction event, Most likely cause, continental drift of a significant landmass into the south polar region, causing a global temperature drop, glaciation, and consequent lowering of the sea level

Again, the history of the world tells me that nature is not some fragile crystal that shatters at the slightest breeze. This history is much more compelling that your completely unsubstaniated speculations based on the premise that the current changes are happening 'too fast for adaptation'.

Really the history of the world tell me that life is incredibly easy to nearly wipe out and only just barely survives in most cases. What makes you so sure we're going to survive while other species that had millions of years to adapt died out?

[TimG]

Site your source.

Cite your source that it is stable. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has strong seasonal signal as due ocean temps. Your claim that it is stable is the more implausible claim. I have already checked the data so I know the seasonal signal is about 0.4-0.5 PH. I am just tired of people making unsupported assertions and then demanding that I cite my source. So you do the leg work.

Are you really denying that during times of rapid climate change there have been mass extinctions?

What I am saying is you cannot isolate ocean PH changes as the causes of those extinctions. Remember - that is all we are talking about. We are not talking about massive changes in temperatures or any other confounding factor that was present in the past. If you want to claim that a slight drop in PH is a problem you need to provide evidence of a causal link between the PH changes and the extinctions. There is no way that can be done with the data available and other climate changes are much more plausible causes.

Really the history of the world tell me that life is incredibly easy to nearly wipe out and only just barely survives in most cases. What makes you so sure we're going to survive while other species that had millions of years to adapt died out?

Nearly wipe out? Again based on what data? Certain species disappeared and other thrived. That is the nature of life. These so called 'mass extinctions' did not turn the planet into a lifeless desert.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Cite your source that it is stable. The CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has strong seasonal signal as due ocean temps. Your claim that it is stable is the more implausible claim. I have already checked the data so I know the seasonal signal is about 0.4-0.5 PH. I am just tired of people making unsupported assertions and then demanding that I cite my source. So you do the leg work.

You seem to be right about this, my mistake and I apologize.

What I am saying is you cannot isolate ocean PH changes as the causes of those extinctions. Remember - that is all we are talking about. We are not talking about massive changes in temperatures or any other confounding factor that was present in the past. If you want to claim that a slight drop in PH is a problem you need to provide evidence of a causal link between the PH changes and the extinctions. There is no way that can be done with the data available and other climate changes are much more plausible causes.

I said climate change not ocean PH, ocean Ph is just one thing effected by climate change.

Nearly wipe out? Again based on what data? Certain species disappeared and other thrived. That is the nature of life. These so called 'mass extinctions' did not turn the planet into a lifeless desert.

It takes a long time for anything to "thrive" after most of the massive extinctions.

[eyeball]

Nearly wipe out? Again based on what data? Certain species disappeared and other thrived. That is the nature of life. These so called 'mass extinctions' did not turn the planet into a lifeless desert.

Not lifeless perhaps, but more often than not a place with a lot less diversity of life, something human's evolved to live within and have usually always relied on to thrive.

Jellyfish, thistles and rats should all be abundant enough in the future I suppose. We'll just have to make do too I guess. Well...not US us exactly...

[TimG]

You seem to be right about this, my mistake and I apologize.

Thanks. Sorry for snapping.

I said climate change not ocean PH, ocean Ph is just one thing effected by climate change.

But we were talking about pH and your claim that a small change in pH would overwhelm the ability of ocean creatures to adapt.

It takes a long time for anything to "thrive" after most of the massive extinctions.

An extinction of the one species will create space for another to thrive immediately but if they are starting with much smaller numbers it will take time for them to appear in the fossil record. There is simply no data to support your claim that life on earth was at risk of dying out even during these events.