Global Warming: Fact or Farce

[Zeno]

One- I have shown you several statistical faults in the graph.It was confirmed by a panel of statisticians. I do not care what climate scientists think of it. Furthermore, the statistical flaws of the graph is all I need to show fault in methodology. I could care less if their arguments were rejected, the statistical flaws they pointed out are real and confirmed.

The graph has been revised since the criticism, independently, and in numerous studies. You are simply cherry picking what to believe. Can I see the paper by this panel of statisticians? The RealClimate links I posted clearly describe how the revision does not drastically change the outcome of the graph. You trust this one panel's finding a lot more than seems warranted. The fault in methodology you speak of is nonexistent. M&M's entire paper has been discredited, not just their arguments.

Most later temperature reconstructions fall within the error bars of the original hockey stick. Some show far more variability leading up to the 20th century than the hockey stick, but none suggest that it has been warmer at any time in the past 1000 years than in the last part of the 20th century.​

Second, I have shown the problems of using tree rings as temperature proxies. They cannot be relied on.

Ok, and what about coral, historical records, boreholes, lake and ocean sediments, want me to keep going? In the other thread I pointed out how wine vineyards make for poor temperature proxies, yet that was ignored. One of the studies even omitted the bristelcone tree ring data that M&M took issue with. It is presented in the graphs I posted.

"Basically, the McIntyre and McKitrick case boiled down to whether selected North American tree rings should have been included, and not that there was a mathematical flaw in Mann's analysis," Ammann says. The use of the bristlecone pine series has been questioned because of a growth spurt around the end of the 19th century that might reflect higher CO2 levels rather than higher temperatures, and which Mann corrected for.
What counts in science is not a single study, however. It is whether a finding can be replicated by other groups. Here Mann is on a winning streak: upwards of a dozen studies, some using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records (excluding the bristlecone record, for instance), have produced reconstructions more or less similar to the original hockey stick.
​

Furthermore, many temperature stations have issues too. A new parking lot would screw up temperatures. Furthermore, the Volstok ice record shows that CO2 lags behind temperature in both directions, further discrediting the hockey stick graph, and while solar irradiation has a large effect on temperature- it cannot account for such massive lag times.

Says who? Did you just decide that right now? I've cited multiple sources about this lagging effect. Do you have proof that it can't account for the "massive lag times."

Also you never entertained the hypothetical scenario I asked you about. I know it's not as important...I just want to put things in perspective.

Furthermore- ice cores in Greenland confirm it was at least as warm 1000 years ago compared to today.

What is clear from the study of past climate is that many factors can influence climate: solar activity, oscillations in Earth's orbit, greenhouse gases, ice cover, vegetation on land (or the lack of it), the configuration of the continents, dust thrown up by volcanoes or wind, the weathering of rocks and so on.
The details are seldom as simple as they seem at first: sea ice reflects more of the Sun's energy than open water but can trap heat in the water beneath, for example. There are complex interactions between many of these factors that can amplify or dampen changes in temperature.
The important question is what is causing the current, rapid warming? We cannot dismiss it as natural variation just because the planet has been warmer at various times in the past. Many studies suggest it can only be explained by taking into account human activity.
Nor does the fact that it has been warmer in the past mean that future warming is nothing to worry about. The sea level has been tens of metres higher during past warm periods, enough to submerge most major cities around the world.

​

 

[Zeno]

Here is an article addressing the alleged flaws in methodology.

A more serious accusation has come from two non-climate scientists from Canada, who claim to have found a flaw in Mann's statistical methodology. Stephen McIntyre, a mathematician and oil industry consultant, and Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, Ontario, base their criticism on the way Mann used a well-established technique called principal component analysis. This involves dividing "noisy" data into different sets and giving each set an appropriate weighting. McIntyre and McKitrick claim that the way Mann applied this method had the effect of damping down natural variability, straightening the shaft of the hockey stick and accentuating 20th century warming.
There is one sense in which Mann accepts that this is unarguably true. The point of his original work was to compare past and present temperatures, so he analysed temperatures in terms of their divergence from the 20th-century mean. This approach highlights differences from that period and will thus accentuate any hockey stick shape if - but only if, he insists - it is present in the data.
The charge from McIntyre and McKitrick, however, is that Mann's computer program does not merely accentuate this shape, but creates it. To make the point, they did their own analysis based on looking for differences from the mean over the past 1000 years instead of from the 20th-century mean. This produced a graph showing an apparent rise in temperatures in the 15th century as great as the warming occurring now. The shaft of the hockey stick had a big kink in it. When this analysis was published last year in Geophysical Research Letters it was hailed by some as a refutation of Mann's study.
McIntyre and McKitrick say that their work is intended to show only that there are problems with Mann's analysis; they do not claim their graph accurately represents past temperatures. "We have repeatedly made it clear that we offer no alternative reconstruction," McIntyre states on his Climate Audit blog.
The obscure statistical arguments were overshadowed in late 2005 when Mann refused to give Congressman Barton his computer code. Mann regarded the code as private property, but his opponents claimed he feared refutation of his findings. Mann did eventually publish the code, but the damage was done.
In the meantime, three groups had been scrutinising the claims of McIntyre and McKitrick. Hans von Storch of the GKSS Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, concluded that McIntyre and McKitrick were right that temperatures should be analysed relative to the 1000-year mean, not the 20th-century mean. But he also found that even when this was done it did not have much effect on the result. Peter Huybers of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts came to much the same conclusion.
The work of Eugene Wahl of Alfred University, New York, and Caspar Ammann of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, raised serious questions about the methodology of Mann's critics. They found the reason for the kink in the McIntyre and McKitrick graph was nothing to do with their alternative statistical method; instead, it was because they had left out certain proxies, in particular tree-ring studies based on bristlecone pines in the south-west of the US.
"Basically, the McIntyre and McKitrick case boiled down to whether selected North American tree rings should have been included, and not that there was a mathematical flaw in Mann's analysis," Ammann says. The use of the bristlecone pine series has been questioned because of a growth spurt around the end of the 19th century that might reflect higher CO2 levels rather than higher temperatures, and which Mann corrected for.
What counts in science is not a single study, however. It is whether a finding can be replicated by other groups. Here Mann is on a winning streak: upwards of a dozen studies, some using different statistical techniques or different combinations of proxy records (excluding the bristlecone record, for instance), have produced reconstructions more or less similar to the original hockey stick.

The whole thing can be found here: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18925431.400

Again, we're talking 12+ studies of verification here, while you have all your eggs in one basket.

 

[yossarian22]

Says who? Did you just decide that right now? I've cited multiple sources about this lagging effect. Do you have proof that it can't account for the "massive lag times."

I did address the hypothetical scenario. It essentially is- a conclusion cannot be drawn as the statistical outliers in the data comprise of a large amount of the sample population. I have no opinion of global warming. I am just pointing out data that conflicts with the current norm of thought.

I want to see the article that addresses the lag. What you have shown me can be summarized as: CO2 is not the only other green house gas and there are other pieces of evidence that link CO2 to warming.
BIG FRIGGIN DEAL. I already knew that. The point remains that solar irradiation could cause a small amount of lag, but if CO2 and temperature are as closely related as global warming argument demands there would not be such significant lags.

Historical records are also useless. The few that go back 1000 years have dubious records at best. Further more, there are not enough of those records to create a reliable global mean for that time. Ice cores contradict the hockey stick graph.
Furthermore- coral, sediment deposits, tree rings, and the other proxies used for the hockey stick graph are extremely noisy. There may be a pattern in that data, but with so much noise, you could put virtually any shape you felt like. Again, there is nothing to address the beginnings of the temperature rise, which was before the industrial revolution.

 

[yossarian22]

Here is an article addressing the alleged flaws in methodology.

The whole thing can be found here: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18925431.400

Again, we're talking 12+ studies of verification here, while you have all your eggs in one basket.

Again, the data is full of enough statistical noise for many conclusions to be drawn.

 

[yossarian22]

The important question is what is causing the current, rapid warming? We cannot dismiss it as natural variation just because the planet has been warmer at various times in the past.
​

We can dismiss the current rapid warming. There is evidence of current warming being a cycle in the ice core records.

 

[Zeno]

What I was asking you: Now, let me give you a hypothetical situation. Let's say that 30 agencies fund research into the effect of pollution on our planet. 25 of them are made of different scientific academies, governments, and environmental groups, and they all reach the same conclusion. The remaining 5 are funded by 5 different oil companies and garner results that are drastically different from the 25 majority. Are you telling me you see no cause to further investigate this scenario? This situation is merely hypothetical; I'm just trying to understand your perspective.

Your response: I did address the hypothetical scenario. It essentially is- a conclusion cannot be drawn as the statistical outliers in the data comprise of a large amount of the sample population.

Ok then. If no conclusion can be garnered from that scenario, then I suppose I got what I was asking for.

What my source said: This proves that rising CO2 was not the trigger that caused the initial warming at the end of these ice ages – but no climate scientist has ever made this claim. It certainly does not challenge the idea that more CO2 heats the planet[.......]What seems to have happened at the end of the recent ice ages is that some factor – most probably orbital changes – caused a rise in temperature. This led to an increase in CO2, resulting in further warming that caused more CO2 to be released and so on: a positive feedback that amplified a small change in temperature. At some point, the shrinking of the ice sheets further amplified the warming.
Models suggest that rising greenhouse gases, including CO2, explains about 40% of the warming as the ice ages ended. The figure is uncertain because it depends on how the extent of ice coverage changed over time, and there is no way to pin this down precisely.
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11659

Your response: I want to see the article that addresses the lag. What you have shown me can be summarized as: CO2 is not the only other green house gas and there are other pieces of evidence that link CO2 to warming.
BIG FRIGGIN DEAL. I already knew that. The point remains that solar irradiation could cause a small amount of lag, but if CO2 and temperature are as closely related as global warming argument demands there would not be such significant lags.

For the sake of continuing this debate, I will accept your claim above even though you do not offer a source. Changes in the earth’s orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years have for a long time been known to affect the coming and going of ice ages. As these changes directly affect the amount of summer sun that reaches the planet.
The lag that you keep mentioning was discovered in 3 ice core studies when examining the warming that terminated the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years. Specifically the lag you are mentioning is 800 years. Your claim can be summarized as: temperatures increase for 800 years without correlation to C02, therefore they are not correlated. These warmings take 5000 years to complete. This lag shows only that out of 5,000 years there are only 800 years in which C02 cannot be blamed. As far as the ice core data that you cite is concerned, the remaining 4,200 year temperature increase can be attributed to C02. To conclude 1/6 of the warming cannot be attributed to C02, and 5/6 can.

RealClimate summarizes the rest well: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/co2-in-ice-cores

From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker.
​

In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full glacial-to-interglacial warming.
​

So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]
​

From April of 2007: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

“First of all, saying "historically" is misleading, because Barton is actually talking about CO2 changes on very long (glacial-interglacial) timescales. On historical timescales, CO2 has definitely led, not lagged, temperature. But in any case, it doesn't really matter for the problem at hand (global warming). We know why CO2 is increasing now, and the direct radiative effects of CO2 on climate have been known for more than 100 years. In the absence of human intervention CO2 does rise and fall over time, due to exchanges of carbon among the biosphere, atmosphere, and ocean and, on the very longest timescales, the lithosphere (i.e. rocks, oil reservoirs, coal, carbonate rocks). The rates of those exchanges are now being completely overwhelmed by the rate at which we are extracting carbon from the latter set of reservoirs and converting it to atmospheric CO2. No discovery made with ice cores is going to change those basic facts.”

Second, the idea that there might be a lag of CO2 concentrations behind temperature change (during glacial-interglacial climate changes) is hardly new to the climate science community. Indeed, Claude Lorius, Jim Hansen and others essentially predicted this finding fully 17 years ago, in a landmark paper that addressed the cause of temperature change observed in Antarctic ice core records, well before the data showed that CO2 might lag temperature. In that paper (Lorius et al., 1990), they say that:

• changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing

What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal radiative forcing change from the earth's wobble around the sun (the well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations (higher temperatures lead to more CO2 leads to warmer temperatures). Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the "carbon pump" (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.

[.......]The record of temperature shown in the ice core is not a global record. It is a record of local Antarctic temperature change. The rest of the globe does indeed parallel the polar changes closely, but the global mean temperature changes are smaller. While we don't know precisely why the CO2 changes occur on long timescales, (the mechanisms are well understood; the details are not), we do know that explaining the magnitude of global temperature change requires including CO2. This is a critical point. We cannot explain the temperature observations without CO2. But CO2 does not explain all of the change, and the relationship between temperature and CO2 is therefore by no means linear. That is, a given amount of CO2 increase as measured in the ice cores need not necessarily correspond with a certain amount of temperature increase. Gore shows the strong parallel relationship between the temperature and CO2 data from the ice cores, and then illustrates where the CO2 is now (384 ppm), leaving the viewer's eye to extrapolate the temperature curve upwards in parallel with the rising CO2. Gore doesn't actually make the mistake of drawing the temperature curve, but the implication is obvious: temperatures are going to go up a lot. But as illustrated in the figure below, simply extrapolating this correlation forward in time puts the Antarctic temperature in the near future somewhere upwards of 10 degrees Celsius warmer than present — rather at the extreme end of the vast majority of projections (as we have discussed here).

​

Basically, the ice core data contradicts nothing about our understanding of C02 and how it relates to temperature.

I am near character limit, I will continue my response later.

 

[yossarian22]

Ok then. If no conclusion can be garnered from that scenario, then I suppose I got what I was asking for.

For the sake of continuing this debate, I will accept your claim above even though you do not offer a source. Changes in the earth’s orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years have for a long time been known to affect the coming and going of ice ages. As these changes directly affect the amount of summer sun that reaches the planet.
The lag that you keep mentioning was discovered in 3 ice core studies when examining the warming that terminated the ice ages that happen every 100,000 years. Specifically the lag you are mentioning is 800 years. Your claim can be summarized as: temperatures increase for 800 years without correlation to C02, therefore they are not correlated. These warmings take 5000 years to complete. This lag shows only that out of 5,000 years there are only 800 years in which C02 cannot be blamed. As far as the ice core data that you cite is concerned, the remaining 4,200 year temperature increase can be attributed to C02. To conclude 1/6 of the warming cannot be attributed to C02, and 5/6 can.

The fault with that argument is that CO2 lags in both directions, so while CO2 lags 800 years after a temperature rise, it also lags during a decrease in temperature, so for a period of time lasting up to 1000 years, CO2 levels increase while temperatures drop; furthermore, CO2 lags throughout the entire graph, so it is logical to conclude that CO2 is obviously not the strong greenhouse gas it is claimed to be. I do not deny that CO2 is a green house gas, but to attribute the recent rise in temperature solely to CO2 is irrational.
I do not need to cite any source for the assertion that solar radiation or orbital variances cannot account for such a lag, because the crux of the global warming argument is: The recent rise in temperatures can be contributed to increased CO2 emissions. If CO2 lagged by 100~ years, such an argument would make sense, but the lag in both directions means that CO2 is not that strong of a greenhouse gas.

 

[wednesday]

The fault with that argument is that CO2 lags in both directions, so while CO2 lags 800 years after a temperature rise, it also lags during a decrease in temperature, so for a period of time lasting up to 1000 years, CO2 levels increase while temperatures drop; furthermore, CO2 lags throughout the entire graph, so it is logical to conclude that CO2 is obviously not the strong greenhouse gas it is claimed to be. I do not deny that CO2 is a green house gas, but to attribute the recent rise in temperature solely to CO2 is irrational.
I do not need to cite any source for the assertion that solar radiation or orbital variances cannot account for such a lag, because the crux of the global warming argument is: The recent rise in temperatures can be contributed to increased CO2 emissions. If CO2 lagged by 100~ years, such an argument would make sense, but the lag in both directions means that CO2 is not that strong of a greenhouse gas.

Mr Al Gore will try and convince you otherwise. Global warming is a natural cycle, the earth is heading towards a magnetic pole reversal (700,000 years) or an ice age. The funny thing with every report ive seen that shows trends on global warming never has a y-axis, so you never know how much its going up, its just shock value advertisement. Also, if im not mistaken CO2 is rather inert within the atmosphere so it cant be doing all the claimed damage.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

I have a problem with Global Warming. Despite it being there, having a presence, it seems to be blows completely out of proportion by the media, scientists etc.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Albert Gore and the global warming crowd have other interests. They have a bigger problem with corporate greed and want global wealth redistribution. They point the finger at others while they live in air conditioned homes with electric clothes and hair dryers and most likely contribute to landfills more than they recycle.

They cruise around on fossil fuel but brag about their hybrid and squiggly light bulbs until they realize that hybrids are not earth friendly and light bulbs that contain mercury are not good for our planet. It takes three times as much energy to produce a hybrid and the zinc needed to make the battery travels around the world before it makes it back to us in the form of a car.

Even I drank the kool-aid of hybrids. I buying a diesel truck next week.

 

[Halcyon]

I work for a branch of the UK government, and we're devising plans to cope with the various scenarios envisaged to occur over the next 30 years. If climate change were not actually occurring, I'd find it odd that we're spending all this tax money on trying to cope with it.

It comes down to this, if you don't believe human beings are behind climate change it's because you are essentially greedy and self-centred, you don't want to change your wasteful lifestyle and so chose to stick your head in the sand and pretend it's nothing to do with you.

 

[Alceste]

Thanks for taking the time, Zeno. I am impressed with your patience. Frubals!

 

[Reverend Rick]

Halcyon, the Emperor is wearing no clothes and our representatives are trying to act concerned about something they know little about and have even less control of.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I work for a branch of the UK government, and we're devising plans to cope with the various scenarios envisaged to occur over the next 30 years. If climate change were not actually occurring, I'd find it odd that we're spending all this tax money on trying to cope with it.

It comes down to this, if you don't believe human beings are behind climate change it's because you are essentially greedy and self-centred, you don't want to change your wasteful lifestyle and so chose to stick your head in the sand and pretend it's nothing to do with you.

This is not a jab at the work you do, which I am sure is to a high standard, but to claim that the UK government has the degree of competency to spend taxpayer money effectively and efficiently is a bit awry.

If I were to be particularly cynical, I couldn't think of anything better for our incompetent government to do than to point away from themselves and scream that we're all going to die. Diversion at its best.

In any respect, I think human beings contribute to climate change, but with all the other confounding factors with regards to our proportional role in all of it, I find it hard to believe that one can ever come to a confident conclusion that altering human activity will have any significant effect on altering any negative future events.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Even if you realise what the problem is, (if we have one at all) and could figure out what the solution is, how could you get a country like China to cooperate?

 

[Halcyon]

This is not a jab at the work you do, which I am sure is to a high standard, but to claim that the UK government has the degree of competency to spend taxpayer money effectively and efficiently is a bit awry.

Believe me, they're very stingy with it in most regards, so the fact that we are spending it on climate change recovery plans speaks volumes.

In any respect, I think human beings contribute to climate change, but with all the other confounding factors with regards to our proportional role in all of it, I find it hard to believe that one can ever come to a confident conclusion that altering human activity will have any significant effect on altering any negative future events.

It won't now, it's too late. The plans our govenment is coming up with aren't concerned with preventing climate change, they're all about dealing with the changes and the problems they will bring.

 

[Alceste]

I work for a branch of the UK government, and we're devising plans to cope with the various scenarios envisaged to occur over the next 30 years. If climate change were not actually occurring, I'd find it odd that we're spending all this tax money on trying to cope with it.

It comes down to this, if you don't believe human beings are behind climate change it's because you are essentially greedy and self-centred, you don't want to change your wasteful lifestyle and so chose to stick your head in the sand and pretend it's nothing to do with you.

Hi, Halcyon. I've just moved to the UK from Canada, I was wondering if you could tell me whether the amount of flooding last year was unusual (seemed like a heck of a lot!) and if the floods are related to global warming? Also, what kind of scenarios are you looking at, out of curiosity? (Ie. if I live in a second floor flat near Penzance, should I move to higher ground or just stick an inflatable raft in the cupboard so I can just pop out the window if need be?)

 

[misanthropic_clown]

Believe me, they're very stingy with it in most regards, so the fact that we are spending it on climate change recovery plans speaks volumes.

Surely it could speak volumes about political pressure as much as it could speak of genuine (rather, legitimately scientific) governmental concern?

That said, I am inclined to agree with you. Our government seems to have a lot of bad press as far as being stingy to scientific research is concerned, ironic given the fact it seems to be quite touchy that the subscription rates for science subjects/degrees/postgraduate research as far as 'home grown' scientists go appear to be reducing.

 

[Halcyon]

Hi, Halcyon. I've just moved to the UK from Canada, I was wondering if you could tell me whether the amount of flooding last year was unusual (seemed like a heck of a lot!) and if the floods are related to global warming? Also, what kind of scenarios are you looking at, out of curiosity? (Ie. if I live in a second floor flat near Penzance, should I move to higher ground or just stick an inflatable raft in the cupboard so I can just pop out the window if need be?)

The floods were unusual as far as history goes, but they can be expected to be more common in future.
I wouldn't worry about flooding if you're in a second floor flat (apart from water contamination and electric and gas being cut off) but since a lot of our towns are built on flood plains more people will get flooded in the future.

I work for DEFRA, and I'm not personally involved in developing the plans, just kept apprised of them. Mainly our plans are concerned with climate change affecting farming and wildlife, plus the various animal diseases that we may see introduced during the next few years.

 

[Alceste]

Surely it could speak volumes about political pressure as much as it could speak of genuine (rather, legitimately scientific) governmental concern?

If the Labour party were at all concerned what the people of the UK think, this country would not be involved in Bush's war.