Greenhouse Warming? What Greenhouse Warming?

[sunsettommy]

I think you missed the point, or didn't bother to read. In the short term climate has a natural variance. For instance, 98 was an unusually warm year due to a strong El Nino. If you plot the temperatures with a 'line of best fit' you do in fact see warming since 98. This is basic statistics, and universally accepted. The data is pretty clear. You just gave us the same graph without the 'line of best fit'. Here, in case you have never heard of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_best_fit

Id like to see the press release you speak of though. Can you provide that?

Andrew

The graph was from the Hadley centre.

Go argue with them.

I knew a long time ago that year 1998 was a hotter than usual year.It was also the biggest CO2 spike as well.Every year since has been cooler than 1998.Over all NO warming since 1998.

The Satellite data shows no warming since 2003.

I have not been able to find the press release.I will go ask a scientist who knows about it.

Back to post this:

HadCRUT3: Global surface temperatures

HadCRUT3 is a globally gridded product of near-surface temperatures, consisting of annual differences from 1961-90 normals. It covers the period 1850 to present and is updated monthly.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadle...a/HadCRUT3.html

The chart clearly shows no warming since 1998.

Edited September 7, 2007 by sunsettommy

[sunsettommy]

Your welcome. I know more about the troposphere from this exercise. Thank You.

Andrew

This type of exchanges is how we learn more.

Did you catch the post about the IPCC's remarks about the near absence of the predicted hot spots?

[sunsettommy]

Try this PDF:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/Spinning%20te...f%20control.pdf

[sunsettommy]

Global Warming at a glance:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm

Take a note of the temperature trend since 1998 data.

[AndrewL]

This type of exchanges is how we learn more.

Did you catch the post about the IPCC's remarks about the near absence of the predicted hot spots?

yes i did. But the issue seems to be in the data and the modeling. I also did some further research and discovered that the Viscount also was verymisleading on the type of evidence we have for climate sensitity. He implied it was only through models we have those number, that is outright false.

Check it out.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1993/1993_Hansen_etal_1.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v347/...s/347139a0.html

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v360/...s/360573a0.html

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/reference/bibliog...gregory0201.pdf

All those studies put climate sensitivity @ ~3 degrees celsius. And all of them are real world observations totally independent of climate modeling.

The Viscount appears to be a bit of a crank.

As in this article by George Monbiot.

...Most importantly (Monckton claims), "the UN repealed a fundamental physical law", doubling the size of the constant (lambda) in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. By assigning the wrong value to lambda, the UN's panel has exaggerated the sensitivity of the climate to extra carbon dioxide. Monckton's analysis looks impressive. It is nonsense from start to finish.

His claims about the Stefan-Boltzmann equation have been addressed by someone who does know what he's talking about, Dr Gavin Schmidt of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He begins by pointing out that Stefan-Boltzmann is a description of radiation from a "black body" - an idealised planet that absorbs all the electromagnetic radiation that reaches it. The Earth is not a black body. It reflects some of the radiation it receives back into space.

Schmidt points out that Monckton also forgets, in making his calculations, that "climate sensitivity is an equilibrium concept": in other words that there is a time-lag of several decades between the release of carbon dioxide and the eventual temperature rise it causes. If you don't take this into account, the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide looks much smaller. This is about as fundamental a mistake as you can make in climate science.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Colum...1947246,00.html

Im thinking he is not very credible as a scientist..... treating the earth as a perfect black body????? Gimme a break.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

Global Warming at a glance:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.htm

Take a note of the temperature trend since 1998 data.

Sunset,

There has been warming since 1998. You have to understand the natural variance and use linear regression to see it. but the warming trend is still there. Quit providing the same graph over and over again. Respond to the rebuttal.

The fact is this is just another skeptic claim that gets recycled on message boards ever once in a while. Then it shows up on some exxon funded site and i have to go through this all over again.

Its a little tiresome.

Andrew

[sunsettommy]

Sunset,

There has been warming since 1998. You have to understand the natural variance and use linear regression to see it. but the warming trend is still there. Quit providing the same graph over and over again. Respond to the rebuttal.

The fact is this is just another skeptic claim that gets recycled on message boards ever once in a while. Then it shows up on some exxon funded site and i have to go through this all over again.

Its a little tiresome.

Andrew

You did not pay attention to the trend I asked you to observe:

Take a note of the temperature trend since 1998 data.

I guess I have to SHOW you.

UAH MSU:

Peak recorded anomaly:

April, 1998: +0.78 °C

Current relative to peak recorded: -0.52 °C

or

RSS MSU:

Peak recorded anomaly:

April, 1998: +0.90 °C

Current relative to peak recorded: -0.677 °C

or

Hadley CRUT3:

Peak recorded anomaly:

February, 1998: +0.75 °C

Current relative to peak recorded: -0.34 °C

The charts reflect it.It is a RUNNING MEAN!

Why you ignore the evidence right in front of you?

[sunsettommy]

I posted a link at post # 26 that shows the running mean.

It is from the Hadley Center.

Why did you avoid it totally?

No upward line since 1998.

[stevoh]

The fact is this is just another skeptic claim that gets recycled on message boards ever once in a while. Then it shows up on some exxon funded site and i have to go through this all over again.

Its a little tiresome.

Andrew

A key question to ask, regardless of whether the "science" is from the left or right wing, is to ask if the scientist or skeptic would loose funding if the results of that science did not line up with the funding groups politics.

In other words, if Monktons research had indicated one of two things:

1. The IPCC report conclusions were reasonable.

2. The IPCC report understated the man made global warming trends.

Would he still be funded by Exxon? I dont' think so. The same holds true for left wing groups, if you are being funded by greenpeace, then you may loose that funding if your research indicates global warming isn't man influenced.

A good first step for accurate information is to find out if the information actually comes from a qualified scientist however, I commend Andrew for taking the time to rebuff the arguments in this attempt at politicizing science.

[noahbody]

Sunset,

There has been warming since 1998. You have to understand the natural variance and use linear regression to see it. but the warming trend is still there. Quit providing the same graph over and over again. Respond to the rebuttal.

The fact is this is just another skeptic claim that gets recycled on message boards ever once in a while. Then it shows up on some exxon funded site and i have to go through this all over again.

Its a little tiresome.

Andrew

Andrew, the one thing that you can't dismiss a another skeptic claim is NASA corrected data set. With it, 7 of the 15 hottest years ocurred before industrialization, 15 hottest years occurred over 7 decades, and the hottest year on record was in the 30s.

[AndrewL]

No upward line since 1998.

Yes there is.

You have to filter out the anamolies like volcanoes and el ninos. Then you apply the line of best fit. What you get is the same rate of increase from 98 till now as you had from 75 to 98.

This is taken from all the same data sets you are linking to. I can keep looking at it and i keep seeing the same thing, which is the same rate of warming since the 70s.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

Andrew, the one thing that you can't dismiss a another skeptic claim is NASA corrected data set. With it, 7 of the 15 hottest years ocurred before industrialization, 15 hottest years occurred over 7 decades, and the hottest year on record was in the 30s.

Actually this is meaningless. The corrected data is for the US only. The US temperature data is for a whopping 2% of the entire surface of the planet. The change to the global trend accounted for less than one thousandth of a degree. Big deal.

The perceived high temperatures recorded in the early part of the century are attributed to the fact that solar activity was on the rise, and that we were in a period of low volcanic activity as compared to the late 18th century.

Neither the sun or volcanic activity account for warming since the 70s.

The temperature corrections from NASA do not change the global trend which reveals a persistent warming since the 70s, and it is so far best explained by AGW.

Andrew

[AndrewL]

A key question to ask, regardless of whether the "science" is from the left or right wing, is to ask if the scientist or skeptic would loose funding if the results of that science did not line up with the funding groups politics.

In other words, if Monktons research had indicated one of two things:

1. The IPCC report conclusions were reasonable.

2. The IPCC report understated the man made global warming trends.

Would he still be funded by Exxon? I dont' think so. The same holds true for left wing groups, if you are being funded by greenpeace, then you may loose that funding if your research indicates global warming isn't man influenced.

A good first step for accurate information is to find out if the information actually comes from a qualified scientist however, I commend Andrew for taking the time to rebuff the arguments in this attempt at politicizing science.

The only thing im concerned about is whether they are honestly reflecting the science at the state it is in. Monckton is certainly not. We can only guess at his motivations.

And i agree, if the information is coming from a climate scientist who is peer reviewed we should take it very seriously. Thats not to say there can't still be biases (the peer review process should correct these biases in most cases), and we should definitely be skeptical about modeling, but when it comes to skeptics in general, we should expect they don't make elementary errors as Monkton does. Its hard to view him as credible when he is so easily debunked by people who actually know what they are talking about.

One thing that is really ridiculous is when skeptics try to claim this is just some big conspiracy theory perpetrated by the UN and thousands of scientists and dozens of governments around the world. That is just silly nonsense with no evidence at all.

Andrew

[Denny]

Kitchener set an all time record for any Septembr day in history on Sept. 6.

[margrace]

My oldest son was born on Sept. 13, 1955, it was 90degrees that day. It was one of the hottest summers on record I think,

But yesterday, although we live in the northern part of Ontario cottage country, you could literally see the pollution in the air. We never had that before. Kelowna has bad pollution too and they do not have the industries south of them that we do. Our gas driven motors are killing us. The temperatures once again were in the high 90s.

Edited September 8, 2007 by margrace

[sunsettommy]

Yes there is.

You have to filter out the anamolies like volcanoes and el ninos. Then you apply the line of best fit. What you get is the same rate of increase from 98 till now as you had from 75 to 98.

This is taken from all the same data sets you are linking to. I can keep looking at it and i keep seeing the same thing, which is the same rate of warming since the 70s.

Andrew

LOLOLOL!!!

Now YOU are moving the goalpost.An excellent example why you did that is because I STATED at post # 13:

At this time there is no actual global warming going on.Has not been since 1998.

You said no at these postings without any qualifiers:

Post # 18

Post # 24

Post # 31

Now that you know I proved my case by showing YOU several sources that clearly show a drop since 1998.They show it statistically.You suddenly add qualifiers of Volcanoes and El-ninyos.They are obviously in the record as you yourself stated:

For instance, 98 was an unusually warm year due to a strong El Nino.

Now you say we have to "filter out" anomalies el-ninyos.

This is B.S.

Now in this post #36 you quoted me:

sunsettommy @ Sep 7 2007, 01:22 PM)

No upward line since 1998.

Your reply is a classic misdirection attempt.Because YOU know in the back of your head that I was talking about the time period from 1998 onward.

You suddenly add qualifiers:

You have to filter out the anamolies like volcanoes and el ninos. Then you apply the line of best fit. What you get is the same rate of increase from 98 till now as you had from 75 to 98.

my emphasis

The problem for you is this.IT IS ALREADY PART OF THE TEMPERATURE DATA!

Do not try this dishonesty crap again.It is stupid.

Now you stated this:

I think you maybe missed the point. In the short term climate has a natural variance. For instance, 98 was an unusually warm year due to a strong El Nino. If you plot the temperatures with a 'line of best fit' you do in fact see warming since 98. This is basic statistics, and universally accepted. The data is pretty clear. You just gave us the same graph without the 'line of best fit'. Here, in case you have never heard of it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_of_best_fit

my emphasis

That chart is from the HADLEY CENTER.The official data source for the IPCC.

You go argue with them.

Here is what YOU keep ignoring.I will show it to you in BLUE.

UAH MSU:

Peak recorded anomaly:

April, 1998: +0.78 °C

Current relative to peak recorded: -0.52 °C

RSS MSU:

Peak recorded anomaly:

April, 1998: +0.90 °C

Current relative to peak recorded: -0.677 °C

Hadley CRUT3:

Peak recorded anomaly:

February, 1998: +0.75 °C

Current relative to peak recorded: -0.34 °C

How can anyone ingore the blue part since they show a slight cooling pattern overall since 1998?

It is obvious that you are willing to decieve yourself by ignoring the data I highlighted in blue.

Your dishonesty is apalling.

[noahbody]

Actually this is meaningless. The corrected data is for the US only. The US temperature data is for a whopping 2% of the entire surface of the planet. The change to the global trend accounted for less than one thousandth of a degree. Big deal.

Andrew

Actually, it kills the case of manmade global warming.

[sunsettommy]

Actually this is meaningless. The corrected data is for the US only. The US temperature data is for a whopping 2% of the entire surface of the planet. The change to the global trend accounted for less than one thousandth of a degree. Big deal.

This crap is right out of the Realclimate scrapbook.

America has about 20% or more ACTIVE weather reporting stations of the world.

[sunsettommy]

Actually this is meaningless. The corrected data is for the US only. The US temperature data is for a whopping 2% of the entire surface of the planet. The change to the global trend accounted for less than one thousandth of a degree. Big deal.

This crap is right out of the Realclimate scrapbook.

America has about 20% or more ACTIVE weather reporting stations of the world.

[sunsettommy]

Actually, it kills the case of manmade global warming.

Not really.

All it did was take out the propaganda sails of James Hansen data manipulation program.The errors are far more pervasive than has been publicized in the media.Climate Audit has since then shown that James Hansen has long been playing loose with the data.

He is no longer a trusted man.

Edited September 10, 2007 by sunsettommy

[jbg]

Actually this is meaningless. The corrected data is for the US only. The US temperature data is for a whopping 2% of the entire surface of the planet. The change to the global trend accounted for less than one thousandth of a degree. Big deal.

Actually, there isn't much data for a lot of the world. Much of the rest of the world is either operating in Third or Fourth World conditions. Other areasa, such as Siberia, have lost many of their stations as a result of post-Cold War defunding by the Russians. Other parts of the world, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere, are covered by water.

Neither the sun or volcanic activity account for warming since the 70s.

Bull. The relative increase in clarity from decrease in soot and ash emissions from the Americas and Europe as actually increased somewhat availability of solar energy.

The temperature corrections from NASA do not change the global trend which reveals a persistent warming since the 70s, and it is so far best explained by AGW.

What about the 1930's? Also, was Greenland's and Iceland's relative habitability during the Medieval Optimum the result of AGW? Similarly, was the failure to hold the Maunder Minimum the result of AGW?

[Severian]

Sunset,

There has been warming since 1998. You have to understand the natural variance and use linear regression to see it. but the warming trend is still there. Quit providing the same graph over and over again. Respond to the rebuttal.

The fact is this is just another skeptic claim that gets recycled on message boards ever once in a while. Then it shows up on some exxon funded site and i have to go through this all over again.

Its a little tiresome.

Andrew

Hmmm...care to elaborate on how linear regression solves the "problem" of generating a rising temperature trend despite declining temperatures? I'm not talking arm waving, but what exactly are your equations and such. Or are you using "linear regression" as a "word of power" or totem against the inconvenient facts that temperature trends are either constant or declining in the past decade? Are you really familiar with mathematics, or are you just saying this as if it actually means something? You appear to be of the same view of Hansen, i.e. that numbers can be tortured into saying whatever you want them to.

Oh my, I noticed the "exxon funded site" trope, how predictable and telling. In climate discussions, invoking the "exxon funded deniers" trope is exactly the same as calling someone a Nazi, it's a sure sign that the poster has nothing to his/her arguments, can't adequately defend the position, and now must resort to insults and hyperbole. It's a sure indication that your argument has jumped the shark and you've lost. There is just so much wrong with this line of BS, and it surely shows you have little to no understanding of what you're discussing, but feel compelled to act like you do for some odd reason.

Yes there is.

You have to filter out the anamolies like volcanoes and el ninos. Then you apply the line of best fit. What you get is the same rate of increase from 98 till now as you had from 75 to 98.

This is taken from all the same data sets you are linking to. I can keep looking at it and i keep seeing the same thing, which is the same rate of warming since the 70s.

Andrew

In other words, we have to arm wave and obsfucate to make it sound like we have a scientific basis for adjusting the data to match our conclusions. Misdirection is key in any magic trick eh? So, you want to filter out "anomalies" that don't fit the theory in order to make it appear like the theory has merit, shameful. Apply "best fit," I'm thinking you sound remarkably like a RealClimate/Hansen groupie here. If you manage to see the same warming trend in that data, you have a keen imagination.

Actually this is meaningless. The corrected data is for the US only. The US temperature data is for a whopping 2% of the entire surface of the planet. The change to the global trend accounted for less than one thousandth of a degree. Big deal.

The perceived high temperatures recorded in the early part of the century are attributed to the fact that solar activity was on the rise, and that we were in a period of low volcanic activity as compared to the late 18th century.

Neither the sun or volcanic activity account for warming since the 70s.

The temperature corrections from NASA do not change the global trend which reveals a persistent warming since the 70s, and it is so far best explained by AGW.

Andrew

Oh my, more of the same. Just like Hansen. First, when the latest correction to the US is brought up, it's "that's not important." Then when it's pointed out that there are serious mistakes in the South American and African data, including no data, and stations with massive heat island contamination, and the non-contaminated stations showing temp declines or stability, then South America and Africa "aren't important." So, if the USA isn't important, and SA and Africa aren't important, what is? Hardly makes it qualify as "global" warming does it?

AGW is most certainly not the best explanation of what warming we have observed. I think you're still buying into Lockwood and Frohliche's simplistic analysis of solar effects, but hey, it supports what you want to believe.

Just as so often happens, you fail to make a credible case, but you obviously are a true believer. Why that is so is something that continues to perplex me as I watch this entire debate continue to unfold, and how the pro-AGW crowd react as their case continues to unravel at an ever increasing speed.

[stevoh]

Oh my, I noticed the "exxon funded site" trope, how predictable and telling. In climate discussions, invoking the "exxon funded deniers" trope is exactly the same as calling someone a Nazi, it's a sure sign that the poster has nothing to his/her arguments, can't adequately defend the position, and now must resort to insults and hyperbole. It's a sure indication that your argument has jumped the shark and you've lost. There is just so much wrong with this line of BS, and it surely shows you have little to no understanding of what you're discussing, but feel compelled to act like you do for some odd reason.

Just as so often happens, you fail to make a credible case, but you obviously are a true believer. Why that is so is something that continues to perplex me as I watch this entire debate continue to unfold, and how the pro-AGW crowd react as their case continues to unravel at an ever increasing speed.

Wow, ok, that turned real nasty all of a sudden! We can discuss the facts and bias without bringing in the personal insults.

The only reason exxon funding is suspicious is because it is within exxons best interest to have global warming proved wrong, so that they can keep selling their product without restriction. If global warming is a real effect, exxon will not be able to sell as much of their product.

I am equally suspicious of "science" funded by environmental organizations.

This does not mean in either case that the science is not necessarily factual, just that it has be be examined closely and peer reviewed before it can be accepted.

I think it also goes without saying that science should come from qualified scientists. Of which Monkton is not.

[sunsettommy]

Suspicious is all you can come up with?

LOL

Last time I checked.It is legal to fund a group doing something lawful.

This suspicion game was invented by environmentalists because their end game are being exposed for their absurd alarmism.The AGW hypothesis is failing as more and more science papers are being published.

Exxon has so little influence due to their tiny funding of a few organizations.It is silly to be suspicious.

Have you read the stupid Union of Concerned Scientists claims against Exxon?

This funding angle is stupid anyway.Since it is the CONTENT of the arguments that is what counts.

Edited September 10, 2007 by sunsettommy

[Severian]

Wow, ok, that turned real nasty all of a sudden! We can discuss the facts and bias without bringing in the personal insults.

The only reason exxon funding is suspicious is because it is within exxons best interest to have global warming proved wrong, so that they can keep selling their product without restriction. If global warming is a real effect, exxon will not be able to sell as much of their product.

I am equally suspicious of "science" funded by environmental organizations.

This does not mean in either case that the science is not necessarily factual, just that it has be be examined closely and peer reviewed before it can be accepted.

I think it also goes without saying that science should come from qualified scientists. Of which Monkton is not.

Oh my, another one. Breed like rabbits apparently.

You're still attacking the messenger, not the message. Apparently you can't attack Monckton's message, so you whine about his credentials. I've seen this tact before, people ignoring the numerous references to papers and reports to say the person making the references has no standing, rather than address the argument said presenter is posing. Weak, very weak, and indicative that you either can't or won't take the time to understand the message. It's the old reverence for authority thing, only it only seems to happen if the authority is of the "right" type or opinion.

I see this comment from a lot of people who idolize the Goracle, who got a C and D in the only two science classes (and wussy ones at that) he attempted in college, these same types rail on about people like Monckton and his credentials while giving the pro-AGW ones a pass. I also see it in people who support AGW but are attempting to appear "reasonable" while supporting the most unreasonable of positions.

Can you address Monckton's arguments and the papers and data he presents. If you can't, you have no business attacking him personally for being unqualified. In other words, pot meet kettle.

I've coined the term "ChickenHawking" out of respect to Stephen Hawking as a scientist to which I dedicate the term, and to point out it's the same behavior that anti-war people use when they call anyone who isn't in the military a "chickenhawk." A "ChickenHawking" is someone who, despite no qualifications of their own, attack another person for lack of qualifications while usually idolizing others with worse credentials.

You're dangerously close to being a ChickenHawking here, take the time to think for yourself and look at the data and arguments, they aren't that complex, no matter what you may have been led to believe. I also note that complaining about the "tone" of a conversation when it's as mild as this is also a typical red herring people with no facts to back them up use to attempt to divert attention, misdirection again. Look, wiggles finger over to the right, while attempting to pull a rabbit out of a hat on the left. Again, an unworthy argument.