Global Warming | Fact or Fiction?

[LegionOnomaMoi]

LegionOnomaMoi

are you saying there is no global warming?

or there is global warming but man has nothing to do with it?

or the earth is heating up and both are effecting it?

Neither really. I'm saying that dismissing the views of the minority opinion of scientists who disagree with AGW theory by insulting them, maligning them, accusing them without basis of things like being "shills for big oil" or "too old," and similar tactics is not just ignorant, it's simply supports post-positivist views of science (those which argue that more than an empirical approach it is simply based on dominant paradigms and worldviews). It's not only possible, it's actually likely (to the point that one would worry if it weren't the case) that in a field with as many unknowns and with the complexity of climate science there would be disagreement. So to simply write off the minority views with baseless accusations rather than appeals to scientific literature (or, if you don't read the literature, than appeal to the majority of experts who do and support the thoery) is, I believe, anti-scientific and rather disgusting.

As for my views, I'm not an expert in climate science. Of course, no one is, as "climate science" covers so many specialties that no one is an expert in more than a few, but while I read the research as a hobby and as another way to understand dynamical systems, real experts study the field as their field.

The mainstream view of AGW is that a period of warming observable in our temperature records from roughly 1970 to 1998 is due primarily to a positive feedback lookp caused by the release of large amounts of greenhouse gases, mainly CO2. Prior to this trend, a period roughly equal to it was a period of cooling. Before that, again a roughly equal period was one of warming, and was roughly the same as the one AGW theory holds was anthropogenic. However, this period is too early to be anthropogenic. My understanding is that the mainstream understanding of this trend is that it was caused (possibily) by varations in solar effects. At any rate, this warming trend is not believed to be anthropogenic. The ~30 year warming trend after the cooling is "global warming." However, the theory did not predict that this trend would stop. It did. There is no global cooling, but the warming trend does not appear after ~1998 in our data sets (which now include satellite data, which unlike other readings is neither subject to surface processes nor limited to local measurements). At the moment, while several hypothesis have been proposed to explain this lack of warming (usually referred to in terms of "delay"), there is no accepted mainstream explanation for the current trend.

We are dealing with a highly complex system and a diverse scientific community (so diverse that some experts have little to know knowledge of the research in another realm of climate science). I have trouble reconciling my understanding of dynamical systems as complex as the climate, our ability to model them, and the certainty expressed by e.g,, the IPCC that the warming trend attributed to humans is different than trends recorded by direct measurements (rather than proxy data sets) over the past 100+ years which were not caused by humans, or far more extreme climate changes over the past several million years. But I have even more trouble reconciling this skepticism with the view that so many scientists could be so sure and so wrong as well as my belief that is would seem, a priori, vast amounts of emissions of would cause changes in the enviornment. So, although I have some reservations, I would follow the the majority view here.

 

[shawn001]

Neither really. I'm saying that dismissing the views of the minority opinion of scientists who disagree with AGW theory by insulting them, maligning them, accusing them without basis of things like being "shills for big oil" or "too old," and similar tactics is not just ignorant, it's simply supports post-positivist views of science (those which argue that more than an empirical approach it is simply based on dominant paradigms and worldviews). It's not only possible, it's actually likely (to the point that one would worry if it weren't the case) that in a field with as many unknowns and with the complexity of climate science there would be disagreement. So to simply write off the minority views with baseless accusations rather than appeals to scientific literature (or, if you don't read the literature, than appeal to the majority of experts who do and support the thoery) is, I believe, anti-scientific and rather disgusting.

As for my views, I'm not an expert in climate science. Of course, no one is, as "climate science" covers so many specialties that no one is an expert in more than a few, but while I read the research as a hobby and as another way to understand dynamical systems, real experts study the field as their field.

The mainstream view of AGW is that a period of warming observable in our temperature records from roughly 1970 to 1998 is due primarily to a positive feedback lookp caused by the release of large amounts of greenhouse gases, mainly CO2. Prior to this trend, a period roughly equal to it was a period of cooling. Before that, again a roughly equal period was one of warming, and was roughly the same as the one AGW theory holds was anthropogenic. However, this period is too early to be anthropogenic. My understanding is that the mainstream understanding of this trend is that it was caused (possibily) by varations in solar effects. At any rate, this warming trend is not believed to be anthropogenic. The ~30 year warming trend after the cooling is "global warming." However, the theory did not predict that this trend would stop. It did. There is no global cooling, but the warming trend does not appear after ~1998 in our data sets (which now include satellite data, which unlike other readings is neither subject to surface processes nor limited to local measurements). At the moment, while several hypothesis have been proposed to explain this lack of warming (usually referred to in terms of "delay"), there is no accepted mainstream explanation for the current trend.

We are dealing with a highly complex system and a diverse scientific community (so diverse that some experts have little to know knowledge of the research in another realm of climate science). I have trouble reconciling my understanding of dynamical systems as complex as the climate, our ability to model them, and the certainty expressed by e.g,, the IPCC that the warming trend attributed to humans is different than trends recorded by direct measurements (rather than proxy data sets) over the past 100+ years which were not caused by humans, or far more extreme climate changes over the past several million years. But I have even more trouble reconciling this skepticism with the view that so many scientists could be so sure and so wrong as well as my belief that is would seem, a priori, vast amounts of emissions of would cause changes in the enviornment. So, although I have some reservations, I would follow the the majority view here.

Did you look into the Nasa websites I posted there?

would you say "Scientists (notably climatologists) have reached scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity."

Climate change denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is a difference between some scientists who questions parts of the research and flat out global warming deniers, some with agendas.

Not sure here if your dismissing the views of the majority opinion of scientists?

There is no doubt some of these deniers are motivated by big oil and politics.

Union of conerned scientists.
Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil’s Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science

Oil Company Spent Nearly $16 Million to Fund Skeptic Groups, Create Confusion

Scientists' Report Documents ExxonMobil's Tobacco-like Disinformation Campaign on Global Warming Science | Union of Concerned Scientists

So how do we sort out who is helping deny the scientific concensus the earth is warming? Certainly as in the case of the emails being hacked even after they were totally clear, people still use that to deny the science.

 

[shawn001]

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)


Global Temperature in 2011, Trends, and Prospects

By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato and Ken Lo — 18 January 2012
The annual 2011 surface air temperature anomaly relative to base period 1951-1980 is shown in Fig. 1 at both the 1200 km and 250 km resolutions of the GISS analysis (Hansen et al., 2010). The global mean anomaly, averaged over the area with a defined anomaly is 0.51°C for 1200 km resolution and 0.44°C for 250 km resolution. The 1200 km resolution analysis, because it fills in estimated anomalies in Africa, Canada, Siberia, and especially in the Arctic, is believed to provide the better estimate for the full global anomaly, as discussed by Hansen et al. (2010) (note 1).

The global temperature anomaly from 1880 through 2011 is shown in Fig. 2 for the standard (1200 km resolution data) GISS analysis (note 2). The year 2011 is the 9th warmest in the GISS analysis. Nine of the ten warmest years are in the 21st century, the only exception being 1998, which was warmed by the strongest El Niño of the past century.

"Has Global Warming Slowed in the Past Decade?

You might want to read the above part as well.

"
Summary

2011 was only the ninth warmest year in the GISS analysis of global temperature change, yet nine of the ten warmest years in the instrumental record (since 1880) have occurred in the 21st century. The past year has been cooled by a moderately strong La Niña. The 5-year (60-month) running mean global temperature hints at a slowdown in the global warming rate during the past few years. However, the cool La Niña phase of the cyclically variable Southern Oscillation of tropical temperatures has been dominant in the past three years, and the deepest solar minimum in the period of satellite data occurred over the past half dozen years. We conclude that the slowdown of warming is likely to prove illusory, with more rapid warming appearing over the next few years."

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2011 Annual Analysis


NOAA: 2011 a year of climate extremes in the United States

NOAA announces two additional severe weather events reached $1 billion damage threshold, raising 2011’s billion-dollar disaster count from 12 to 14 events



Globally

• This year tied 1997 as the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880. The annual global combined land and ocean surface temperature was 0.92 degrees F above the 20th century average of 57.0 degrees F. This marks the 35th consecutive year, since 1976, that the yearly global temperature was above average. The warmest years on record were 2010 and 2005, which were 1.15 degrees F above average.
• Separately, the 2011 global average land surface temperature was 1.49 degrees F above the 20th century average of 47.3 degrees F and ranked as the eighth warmest on record. The 2011 global average ocean temperature was 0.72 degrees F above the 20th century average of 60.9 degrees F and ranked as the 11th warmest on record.
• Including 2011, all eleven years of the 21st century so far (2001-2011) rank among the 13 warmest in the 132-year period of record. Only one year during the 20th century, 1998, was warmer than 2011.
• La Niña, which is defined by cooler-than-normal waters in the eastern and central equatorial Pacific Ocean that affects weather patterns around the globe, was present during much of 2011. A relatively strong phase of La Niña opened the year, dissipated in the spring before re-emerging in October and lasted through the end of the year. When compared to previous La Niña years, the 2011 global surface temperature was the warmest observed.
• The 2011 globally-averaged precipitation over land was the second wettest year on record, behind 2010. Precipitation varied greatly across the globe. La Niña contributed to severe drought in the Horn of Africa and to Australia’s third wettest year in its 112-year period of record.
• Arctic sea ice extent was below average for all of 2011, and has been since June 2000, a span of 127 consecutive months. Both the maximum ice extent (5.65 million square miles on March 7th) and the minimum extent (1.67 million square miles on September 9th) were the second smallest of the satellite era.
• For the second year running, NCDC asked a panel of climate scientists to determine and rank the year’s ten most significant climate events, for both the United States and for the planet, to include record drought in East Africa and record flooding in Thailand and Australia. The results are at Climate Monitoring.

NOAA: 2011 a year of climate extremes in the United States


"but the warming trend does not appear after ~1998 in our data sets"

Yes it does.



Peter Gleick, Contributor
CEO Pacific Institute, MacArthur Fellow, National Academy of Sciences

Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal

Remarkable Editorial Bias on Climate Science at the Wall Street Journal - Forbes


"vast amounts of emissions of would cause changes in the enviornment."

Ya think? Huge amounts of emissions since the industrial revolution.

Its pretty much proven that man has had a major impact on our climate, along with normal climate changes. They are usally every 10,000 years or so with variations for different reasons, for example La Niña and El Niño, but not 200 and the changes were seeing happen so fast.

Does it matter if man is or not anyway if its heating up and going to cause major problems.

Which is one reason the CIA has a climate center and the US Military.

CIA Opens Center on Climate Change and National Security

https://www.cia.gov/news-informatio...-on-climate-change-and-national-security.html

of course

CIA Keeps Its Climate Work Under Wraps

CIA Keeps Its Climate Work Under Wraps | Mother Jones


Local View: U.S. Military – Global Warming is Real

January 28, 2012

Skeptics of human-caused climate change unremittingly contend that the science is inconclusive and the debate still is unsettled. The U.S. military, on the other hand, entertains no such doubts."
National Security Threat


Every four years, the Department of Defense issues a congressionally mandated “Quadrennial Defense Review” framing the Pentagon’s strategic choices and establishing priorities to determine appropriate resource investments. In February 2010, for the first time, climate change was formally designated in the QDR as a “National Security Threat.”

"
GOP Refuses to Acknowledge Global Warming

The Republican Party for decades has styled itself as the party of national defense and military strength. Yet debunking the international scientific consensus on climate change has become a veritable article of faith among Republican candidates and officeholders. That position puts the GOP squarely at odds with the military establishment, which has unequivocally accepted the scientific conclusions of the 97 percent of the world’s climatologists who actually conduct research on climate and publish in journals reviewed by their peers.
This past November, the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board released its own study, “Trends and Implications of Climate Change for National and International Security.” The study asserts that “climate impacts are observable, measurable, real, and having near and long-term consequences.” Failure to anticipate and mitigate these changes, the report argues, “increases the threat of more failed states with the instabilities and potential for conflict inherent in such failures.”
Climate change, the Defense Science Board warns bluntly, already is occurring and is destined only to grow as a security concern for the United States. And the longer we (and the GOP’s skeptics and deniers) delay acting, the worse it will be for all of us, everywhere."

Local View: U.S. Military – Global Warming is Real | The PeaceWorker

Like Santorum in the last debate calling global warming a HOAX! Or that none of them ever bring it up at all, except to call it a hoax or use the term enviromentals in a negative fasion.

This is cool anyway but take a look at this new Nasa High resolution image of the earth. One thing to notice is how thin our atmosphere really is from space. How could the amount of poluutants we put up there not effect it? Like the ozone.

Blue Marble 2012: NASA Releases High Definition Image Of Earth (PHOTO)

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Did you look into the Nasa websites I posted there?

No, I prefer to read the research and other academic materials.

would you say "Scientists (notably climatologists) have reached scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and is mainly due to human activity."

I would. However, science isn't a matter of consensus. The entire scientific and mathematical world followed classical mechanics until all of the sudden a few lone voices showed this view was inaccurate. Groups and scientists just as prestigious as those who agree in the validity of the AGW theory also believed in eugenics, from Pearson to the National Academy of Sciences. Science rests on evidence.

There is a difference between some scientists who questions parts of the research and flat out global warming deniers, some with agendas.

True enough. And there are more than a few scientists who have the opposite agenda. Environmentalism isn't a scientific field, it's a socio-political movement. And some scientists subscribe to activist views that have nothing to do with science, just as I imagine some scientists have biases (based on politics or something else) which likewise motivate them to form anti-AGW opinions which have nothing to do with science.

Not sure here if your dismissing the views of the majority opinion of scientists?

I'm not.

There is no doubt some of these deniers are motivated by big oil and politics.

There is no doubt that some proponents are motivated by political biases as well. We actually have their private emails to see where science ends and bias begins.

So how do we sort out who is helping deny the scientific concensus the earth is warming?

Everytime I hear about "scientific consensus" I shudder. The whole notion is paradoxical. Science and consensus have nothing in common. The issue is the research and evidence.

Certainly as in the case of the emails being hacked even after they were totally clear, people still use that to deny the science.

They do. And the emails don't show anything which "disproves" AGW. They do clearly demonstrate views and actions which are anything but unbiased scientific inquiry.

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)

Data.GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP)


Global Temperature in 2011, Trends, and Prospects

How familiar are you with the research into biases and the corrections for them in surface temperature data sets? Have you read, for example, the research on the inadequacies in these sets in their correction for (anthropogenic and natural) surface processes?

"Has Global Warming Slowed in the Past Decade?

You might want to read the above part as well.

I get the same thing I do from lots of other explanations of the lack of a warming trend here too, as you link states: "Thus, although the current global warming graphs (Figs. 2, 3 and the upper part of Fig. 7) are suggestive of a slowdown in global warming, this apparent slowdown may largely disappear as a few more years of data are added." An additional issue here I find extremely baffling is Hansen's reliance on surface temperature data sets rather than satellite sets despite their increased accuracy. At any rate, even a brief perusal of the past few years of research papers published by scientists who are proponents of the theory of AGW sends a clear message: the data sets show a lack of a warming trend, but we have reasons which explain this. The problem is these reasons don't appear to amount to any "consensus." And even given an agreement, such as cyclical changes in the climate, this doesn't do much to address the issue. Central to the theory of AGW is the models we use and the positive feedback parameter. The parameter is believed to be strongly positive because our models can't "predict" the warming without it. But our models also didn't predict the recent lack of warming. A 2011 study from the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science also addressed "why global temperatures did not rise" and they (like your link) also stated this in no way underminded the theory of AGW, as it was a matter of natural climate cycles. The question is, if our models were not able to adequately predict what is now being explained after the fact, then why are we putting so much faith in them?

This year tied 1997 as the 11th warmest year since records began in 1880.

First, we are talking about trends, not particular years. Second, the world has been around for several billion years. Hominids for several million. You're talking about a record that goes back a little over a century, and which shows periods of warming and cooling, and which is currently in a trend your link explaines is due to natural cycles, and will disappear over time. But that's a prediction, not fact.

"but the warming trend does not appear after ~1998 in our data sets"

Yes it does.

First, what data set are you using? Second, if you are correct, then why does a 2011 PNAS study published by AGW proponents address the issue of why "it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008?" Why does your link refer to years in the future which will explain observed temperatures now and in the past several years?

Its pretty much proven that man has had a major impact on our climate, along with normal climate changes. They are usally every 10,000 years or so with variations for different reasons, for example La Niña and El Niño, but not 200 and the changes were seeing happen so fast.

There are many, many, more cycles and natural forcings than those you refer to. There is a well known 150,000 year cycle. Then there's the issue of cloud seeding and GCRs.

Do you know what the "proof" you refer to is? For the most part, it's computer models. Climate scientists DON'T think that the emissions released along caused the warming. Rather, according to our models, the warming trend can't be explained without a positive feedback parameter. So the CO2 causes changes in a system we know we don't fully understand because our models which have so far failed to predict accurately say so. Normally, if someone were giving me links like yours I wouldn't pay much attention. However, the fact is that most scientists working in climate science for whatever reason don't see the problems with our models, our lack of knowledge, or our inability to accurately address systems as dynamic as climate change as a reason to doubt the validity of the theory of AGW. So that's what we have, and unless I find more to convince me that the majority is wrong, I'm going to assume that my doubts are based on something else, such as a focus on dynamical systems rather than physics, or that I haven't read enough research papers from enough subdisciplines of climate science.

 

[shawn001]

No, I prefer to read the research and other academic materials.

As opposed to real time data from the actual nasa satellites? As well as the actual nasa research around the globe on posted on those websites? That is the data on the vital signs of sea ice melt, the ozone, carbon dioxide, global surface tempertures and more

NASA Launches 'Eyes on the Earth 3-D'

New interactive features on NASA's Global Climate Change Web site give the public the opportunity to "fly along" with NASA's fleet of Earth science missions and observe Earth from a global perspective in an immersive, 3-D environment.

Developed using a state-of-the-art, browser-based visualization technology, "Eyes on the Earth 3-D" displays the location of all of NASA's 15 currently operating Earth-observing missions in real time. These missions constantly monitor our planet's vital signs, such as sea level height, concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, global temperatures and extent of sea ice in the Arctic, to name a few.

NASA Launches 'Eyes on the Earth 3-D' - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory


Nasa's Climate change Vital signs of the planet

Global temperture up 1.5 degrees since 1880.

2011 was the 9 warmest year on record.

Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet



I would. However, science isn't a matter of consensus. The entire scientific and mathematical world followed classical mechanics until all of the sudden a few lone voices showed this view was inaccurate. Groups and scientists just as prestigious as those who agree in the validity of the AGW theory also believed in eugenics, from Pearson to the National Academy of Sciences. Science rests on evidence.


"Science rests on evidence."

The evidence is were warming up.


True enough. And there are more than a few scientists who have the opposite agenda. Environmentalism isn't a scientific field, it's a socio-political movement. And some scientists subscribe to activist views that have nothing to do with science, just as I imagine some scientists have biases (based on politics or something else) which likewise motivate them to form anti-AGW opinions which have nothing to do with science.

You do know that the Bush admin, changed Hansen's research papers from nasa. The guy in the Bush admin who did it use to work for the oil companies and they change the research to downplay global warming. Lets see enviromentaists verses big oil? Hmmm


I'm not.

There is no doubt that some proponents are motivated by political biases as well. We actually have their private emails to see where science ends and bias begins.

That were hacked they were talking to each other not to the scientific community and nothing in there was against global warming and they were totally cleared of any wrong doing.





Everytime I hear about "scientific consensus" I shudder. The whole notion is paradoxical. Science and consensus have nothing in common. The issue is the research and evidence.

is there a scientific consensus to evolution? Do you think it will change?



They do. And the emails don't show anything which "disproves" AGW. They do clearly demonstrate views and actions which are anything but unbiased scientific inquiry.

[/b]

How familiar are you with the research into biases and the corrections for them in surface temperature data sets? Have you read, for example, the research on the inadequacies in these sets in their correction for (anthropogenic and natural) surface processes?

I know a lot about all this, including the history of the earths climates.


I get the same thing I do from lots of other explanations of the lack of a warming trend here too, as you link states: "Thus, although the current global warming graphs (Figs. 2, 3 and the upper part of Fig. 7) are suggestive of a slowdown in global warming, this apparent slowdown may largely disappear as a few more years of data are added." An additional issue here I find extremely baffling is Hansen's reliance on surface temperature data sets rather than satellite sets despite their increased accuracy. At any rate, even a brief perusal of the past few years of research papers published by scientists who are proponents of the theory of AGW sends a clear message: the data sets show a lack of a warming trend, but we have reasons which explain this. The problem is these reasons don't appear to amount to any "consensus." And even given an agreement, such as cyclical changes in the climate, this doesn't do much to address the issue. Central to the theory of AGW is the models we use and the positive feedback parameter. The parameter is believed to be strongly positive because our models can't "predict" the warming without it. But our models also didn't predict the recent lack of warming. A 2011 study from the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science also addressed "why global temperatures did not rise" and they (like your link) also stated this in no way underminded the theory of AGW, as it was a matter of natural climate cycles. The question is, if our models were not able to adequately predict what is now being explained after the fact, then why are we putting so much faith in them?

"I find extremely baffling is Hansen's reliance on surface temperature data sets rather than satellite"

You didn't look at the Nasa websites I posted and the satllite data some of which this comes from.

Also

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies

In 1880, when modern global temperature records began, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were at 285 parts per million. In 2011, they are were over 390 parts per million. That has trapped a lot of extra energy on earth — see “The Radiative Forcing of the CO2 Humans Have Put in the Air Equals 1 Million Hiroshima Bombs a Day.”
As we’ve spewed greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere at at a faster pace, global temperatures have accelerated upward, particularly since the 1970′s. To illustrate this rise, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies released this fascinating video of 131 years of temperature records edited into a 30-second video.

“We know the planet is absorbing more energy than it is emitting,” said GISS Director James E. Hansen. “So we are continuing to see a trend toward higher temperatures. Even with the cooling effects of a strong La Niña influence and low solar activity for the past several years, 2011 was one of the 10 warmest years on record.”
Hansen said he expects record-breaking global average temperature in the next two to three years…. “It’s always dangerous to make predictions about El Niño, but it’s safe to say we’ll see one in the next three years,” Hansen said. “It won’t take a very strong El Niño to push temperatures above 2010.”
​

NASA Video Illustrates 130 Years of Global Warming, Hansen Expects New Global Temperature Record Within 3 Years | ThinkProgress


NASA | Temperature Data: 1880-2011

[youtube]EoOrtvYTKeE[/youtube]
NASA | Temperature Data: 1880-2011 - YouTube


First, what data set are you using? Second, if you are correct, then why does a 2011 PNAS study published by AGW proponents address the issue of why "it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008?" Why does your link refer to years in the future which will explain observed temperatures now and in the past several years?

""it has been unclear why global surface temperatures did not rise between 1998 and 2008?" "

They are addressing it in the links I am posting and your not reading.


There are many, many, more cycles and natural forcings than those you refer to. There is a well known 150,000 year cycle. Then there's the issue of cloud seeding and GCRs.

Do you know what the "proof" you refer to is? For the most part, it's computer models. Climate scientists DON'T think that the emissions released along caused the warming. Rather, according to our models, the warming trend can't be explained without a positive feedback parameter. So the CO2 causes changes in a system we know we don't fully understand because our models which have so far failed to predict accurately say so. Normally, if someone were giving me links like yours I wouldn't pay much attention. However, the fact is that most scientists working in climate science for whatever reason don't see the problems with our models, our lack of knowledge, or our inability to accurately address systems as dynamic as climate change as a reason to doubt the validity of the theory of AGW. So that's what we have, and unless I find more to convince me that the majority is wrong, I'm going to assume that my doubts are based on something else, such as a focus on dynamical systems rather than physics, or that I haven't read enough research papers from enough subdisciplines of climate science.

"Do you know what the "proof" you refer to is? For the most part, it's computer models."

Some of it is computer models, but that is certainly not where all the EVIDENCE comes from.

Climate Change: Evidence

 

[shawn001]

First, we are talking about trends, not particular years. Second, the world has been around for several billion years. Hominids for several million. You're talking about a record that goes back a little over a century, and which shows periods of warming and cooling, and which is currently in a trend your link explaines is due to natural cycles, and will disappear over time. But that's a prediction, not fact.

You might want to look at this

The Earth's climate has changed throughout history. Just in the last 650,000 years there have been seven cycles
of glacial advance and retreat, with the abrupt end of the last ice age about 7,000 years ago marking the
beginning of the modern climate era — and of human civilization. Most of these climate changes are attributed to
very small variations in Earth’s orbit that change the amount of solar energy our planet receives.
The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and
proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.1

Climate Change: Evidence

 

[shawn001]

This in itself is just interesting.

Arctic Ocean freshwater bulge detected


UK scientists have detected a huge dome of fresh water that is developing in the western Arctic Ocean.
The bulge is some 8,000 cubic km in size and has risen by about 15cm since 2002.
The team thinks it may be the result of strong winds whipping up a great clockwise current in the northern polar region called the Beaufort Gyre.
This would force the water together, raising sea surface height, the group tells the journal Nature Geoscience....

"
If the fresh water were to enter the North Atlantic in large volumes, the concern would be that it might disturb the currents that have such a great influence on European weather patterns. These currents draw warm waters up from the tropics, maintaining milder temperatures in winter than would ordinarily be expected at northern European latitudes."

BBC News - Arctic Ocean freshwater bulge detected

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'd like to make this clear: my issue isn't with AGW, and my position is that the most likely theory of climate is what the majority of research suggests: an anthropogenic change in the climate trend resulting in a warming period (which right now is either obscured, delayed by natural cycles, or something else, but which won't last).

I am also quite certain that there are valid criticisms of the current theory, and that there are many scientists working either in climate science or who are specialists in fields used in climate science who disagree with the majority view based on a scientific assessment and skepticism of the evidence. If there weren't, I would be worried. Total agreement in a scientific theory involving so many different discipines which is fairly new and which is this complex and with so many unknowns shouldn't exist. There should be scientists who look at the problems in the research and doubt the theory. I believe that scientists should constantly be trying to prove themselves wrong, and the so-called "deniers" are at least doing that and forcing others to prove them wrong, thus advancing the state of our knowledge.

Despite the criticisms of Steve McIntrye both from academia and concerened non-specialists (many of these criticisms are both unscientific and really repugnant), I went from being skeptical that the man was doing anything but forcing scientists to waste their time to being grateful for his work and admiring him for it.

I've tried myself to get a handle on the research and data behind the surface temperature data sets, from individual proxy sets and satellite data, to the various global record sets which combine different measurement sets. I tried twice, each time for several months, getting more and more obsessive, until finally giving up. McIntrye did this before so much raw data was available (a lot of it is now thanks only to him) from records to code. And he's still at it. A guy who wasn't in any scientific field, who was interested in one temperature chart and who happened to have the necessary mathematical capacity and computer skills, managed to continue for years, even getting published, despite his lack of scientific credentials or connections, the complexity of the issue, the missing raw data, and a great deal of opposition. I gave up twice after less work trying to accomplish less.

Trying to assess the robustness of the data sets seems almost as complicated as climate science itself. The mathematics/statistical techniques are about the easist part (and it isn't exactly simplistic mathematics). There are a vast number of papers published which 1) constantly refer to other papers, which is expected, but in this case too many of the references refer to other data sets and/or mathematical techniques not just to indicate why a particular method was used or where certain data came from, but as an explanation for methods used rather than a description and 2) refer to raw data and code which are difficult or impossible to find and 3) often describe the methods/math used (when they do) in ways that make it difficult to discern exactly what the researchers actually did with their data. A lot of the time it the researchers use statistical techniques which are very new or are adaptions to more common techniques when it seems as if more common and validated tests would have worked just as well, if not better. And as it is often difficult to obtain either the raw data or any computer code used, trying to compare the results with the results other tests return is often impossible. So many of the papers behind the data set appear to have been accepted after peer-review without much reviewing. It is thanks largely to McIntrye that this is fairly readily apparent. His work is directly and indirectly behind a lot published criticisms and the published rejoinders, along side a mass of online information of consisting of both critiques and responses. The number of simple mistakes which may or may not have made any significance but which any thorough review would have caught is incredible.

Thanks to a number of hearings, the hack/release of emails, etc., one thing that is clear is that it is impossible to test entirely the validity and robustness of the data sets which combine temperature data from numerous other sets for a global record, from those at the UEA to NASA. In many instances, the researchers responsible for the record state that original data is missing, or that they can't release it, and likewise for the code. Additionally, even when one can access original data and code, a lot of the adjustments to the data depend on a research articles concerning UHI, equipment failure, etc., which other peer-reviewed research articles claim are inaccurate.

This doesn't mean that the global temperature hasn't risen. It absolutely has. It does make it much more difficult to assess HOW much it has risen and how to interpret this rise.

 

[work in progress]

How much of the IPCC reports have you read? And you do realize that these reports are summaries of the state of climate research? That is, they aren't intended to do anything other than provide an acccurate assessment of the research in the various subdisciplines of climate science. Which also means that nothing can be learned from them that one wouldn't get from actually reading the papers.

Oh yeah! I spend all my free time reading IPCC reports just like you do.

I am aware that by the time the U.N. gathers the research papers for these reports, they are already at least 3 years old, and that's why they are always behind the curve when it comes to examining recent trends, such as the increase in Arctic warming, and the increasing rates of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere.

And what studies are you using to base these statements on? For that matter, which journals relating to climate science do you regularly read?

I think a lot of that question has already been dealt with by Shawn001, and I already told you I'm not a scientist, and I don't pay for subscriptions to scientific journals; but I expect the scientists and science writers who do are conveying an accurate presentation of those reports -- otherwise the original authors or other science writers and bloggers will weigh in on the subject. Like I said before, this is the only sort of argument from authority I accept -- the clear consensus of expert opinion. The same principle applies when dealing with paranormal and pseudoscientific claims, and claims that evolutionary theory is wrong. The tiny minority of contrarians have the burden of proof to present their own theories, not to try to confuse readers with misapplied technical information (which is the clear objective of global warming deniers and creationists).

I am willing to accept that despite my skepticism of the scientific/mathematical community to accurately model systems as complex as the climate, and the fact that so far our predictions have failed, could be due to the fact that I lack the expertise in so many other fields related to climate science and thus I would be better served by following those who are experts in particular fields related to climate science, and the majority of these believe the evidence for AGW is quite strong.

I didn't change my opinion on global warming because of scientific models. The game-changer for me is that there is clear, uncontrovertible evidence that CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels are rising (and at an increasing rate of increase); almost 40% of the summer minimum Arctic sea ice coverage is gone....Canada, the U.S. and Russia are sending naval ships and oil exploration vessels along Arctic coastlines that had been only accessible to large icebreakers up till recent years....and yet there are still loonies running around saying there's no evidence of global warming! And the icing on the cake for me has been the sloppy, disingenuous theorizing of the few contrarians that you hold in high esteem, like Roy Spencer and John Christy, who have had their theorizing about global warming resulting from natural causes and atmospheric dimming effects of CO2 counterbalancing the warming impacts (low climate sensitivity) refuted. What bothers me most about the kind of science they and the other handful of deniers are doing, is there complete lack of curiosity or willingness to explore the other impacts of rising greenhouse gas levels....like the deleterious effects on the world's oceans already mentioned.

Even if these clowns were right, and CO2 results in lowering climate sensitivity to warming, there would still be the longterm catastrophic consequences of poisoning the world's oceans! And yet Christy, Spencer and the Pielke's jr. and sr., lobby for either staying the course on oil and coal exploitation or maintaining the status quo. The only conclusion I come to about this clique is that they are dangerous cranks who are motivated by some combination of money and political ideology to advocate for policies that will wreak havoc for future generations!

However, as no one is an expert in more than a few of the fields related to climate science, I can understand if scientists that some scientist can conclude based on their expertise that the evidence isn't strong enough, because that tends to be the case in any field that involves specialists from multiple backgrounds and enormous complexity. There are minorities in lots of fields, including those related to my own, with whom I disagree. I don't write them off and malign them because of this, however.

Let me toss one up that I think is very relevant to our present situation in light of confusing claims made about Paleoclimate research - i.e. that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past than they are at present. This one is popular with a major climate disinformation site funded by a consortium of coal companies. Even with the problems getting accurate CO2 readings from geologic evidence, there have been times in the past when carbon levels were likely much higher than they are now....one that stands out is the time around the Permian/Triassic Extinction, when atmospheric CO2 levels were likely as high as 2000 ppm. or 2% of atmospheric gases. The unspoken assumption from the presentation is that before we start worrying about a runaway greenhouse effect similar to the P/T, CO2 levels would have to be much higher than they are now.....or maybe not!

One factor that is still completely ignored,and one of the reasons why James Lovelocke says he started thinking up a Gaia Hypothesis over 40 years ago, is that the Sun has increased its energy output at least 30% since life on Earth got started almost 4 billion years ago, and there is evidence in the basic composition of atmospheric gases that the planet's biosphere has been trying to tweak the dials of negative and positive feedback effects to optimize conditions for life.Gaia Theory

The Gaia system of feedback loops may work to regulate the planet for life under normal circumstances, but is slow to respond to shocks that result from asteroid/comet impacts, sudden increases in vulcanism (such as when continents split apart or crash together), and dealing with a lifeform that is growing and consuming resources at levels never dealt with before. Right now we are learning that natural carbon sequestration will take 100,000 years to bring CO2 levels down to pre-industrial levels. Seems obvious that if we have reached the level of sophistication to artificially engineer the environment, we also have the responsibility to clean up after ourselves....or face the consequences!

In "Revenge Of Gaia" written by Lovelock five years ago -- the early conditions for life were threatened by cooling and ice formation, and the atmosphere just happened to have no oxygen and maintained high levels of methane in the atmosphere, besides CO2 to maximize the greenhouse effect. About 2 billion years ago, there was a transition, when methane disappeared and oxygen started becoming a major component...which just happened to be around the time when Earth was truly "fine tuned" for life, and did not need any adjusting to keep the oceans from icing over. And ever since that time, as the Sun gets progressively hotter, the negative feedback effects of carbon sequestration have overtaken the natural greenhouse effect by keeping atmospheric CO2 below 300 ppm for several million years...until the start of the Industrial Revolution. And what do you know -- reports have come out in recent years which claim that Co2 rates will have to fall below 300 before the ice and permafrost which has been lost, refreezes! The takeaway is that we have had little threat of a runaway cooling "Snowball Earth" in at least 500 million years, while the risks of increasing temperatures to levels which can no longer support multicellular life keep increasing.

I don't know where the consensus of opinion is on either the "weak gaia" or "strong gaia" theories, but Lovelock, and others who have tried to develop a theory from this approach, have been examining how their theory explains all ranges of data, unlike the approach of climate or evolution deniers.

I do have access to these publications. Would you like to read them and see what they actually say?

Sure, and I'll see what I can make of them, but I'll come at it from the same perspective I did a few years ago, when a chemical engineer who just happened to be a creationist told me I had to understand Shannon Information Theory before I could critique the mathematical "proof" of intelligent design created by William Dembski, and called "Complex Specified Information." To me, it just appeared that an engineer who had greater knowledge of math was trying to play a shell game with technical information and jargon. And soon enough, I was able to find blogging mathematicians who did have the technical knowledge to take down a math system that was apparently pre-designed to produce the desired results. It wasn't something that I could make much head or tail of afterwards, but it became obvious that Dembski could not fool other experts in information theory...even ones who were not even involved in evolution/creation debates. There is so much information out there, that the average consumer has to carefully select which aisle to delve into because there are so many opportunities to waste time going down dead ends!

 

[work in progress]

Thanks to a number of hearings, the hack/release of emails, etc., one thing that is clear is that it is impossible to test entirely the validity and robustness of the data sets which combine temperature data from numerous other sets for a global record, from those at the UEA to NASA. In many instances, the researchers responsible for the record state that original data is missing, or that they can't release it, and likewise for the code. Additionally, even when one can access original data and code, a lot of the adjustments to the data depend on a research articles concerning UHI, equipment failure, etc., which other peer-reviewed research articles claim are inaccurate.

For me, the most important number...and one that I never hear deniers dealing with or trying to refute - is those monthly atmospheric CO2 numbers taken at Mauna Loa Observatory for the last 50 years. Looks conclusive that they are rising, and rising at a greater and greater rate of increase -- why? And what are the long term implications policy-wise for rising Co2 and other greenhouse gas levels?

This doesn't mean that the global temperature hasn't risen. It absolutely has. It does make it much more difficult to assess HOW much it has risen and how to interpret this rise.

So "teach the controversy?" I don't really give a rat's *** if the models are exactly accurate, or some mountain glacier melts may be exaggerated, I want some denier to tell me why maintaining the present economic system and burning of fossil fuels are good things that can carry on into the future.

 

[work in progress]

Almost forgot: on the subject that started the latest flurry of activity here -- that Wall Street Journal story once again claiming it's all just our imagination, Joe Romm of Climate Progress has a more detailed takedown of the story, Murdoch Press and the 16 "scientists" who signed on to this story:
Panic Attack: Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal Finds 16 Scientists to Push Pollutocrat Agenda With Long-Debunked Climate Lies

 

[shawn001]

Oh yeah! I spend all my free time reading IPCC reports just like you do.

I am aware that by the time the U.N. gathers the research papers for these reports, they are already at least 3 years old, and that's why they are always behind the curve when it comes to examining recent trends, such as the increase in Arctic warming, and the increasing rates of CO2 and methane in the atmosphere.

I think a lot of that question has already been dealt with by Shawn001, and I already told you I'm not a scientist, and I don't pay for subscriptions to scientific journals; but I expect the scientists and science writers who do are conveying an accurate presentation of those reports -- otherwise the original authors or other science writers and bloggers will weigh in on the subject. Like I said before, this is the only sort of argument from authority I accept -- the clear consensus of expert opinion. The same principle applies when dealing with paranormal and pseudoscientific claims, and claims that evolutionary theory is wrong. The tiny minority of contrarians have the burden of proof to present their own theories, not to try to confuse readers with misapplied technical information (which is the clear objective of global warming deniers and creationists).

I didn't change my opinion on global warming because of scientific models. The game-changer for me is that there is clear, uncontrovertible evidence that CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels are rising (and at an increasing rate of increase); almost 40% of the summer minimum Arctic sea ice coverage is gone....Canada, the U.S. and Russia are sending naval ships and oil exploration vessels along Arctic coastlines that had been only accessible to large icebreakers up till recent years....and yet there are still loonies running around saying there's no evidence of global warming! And the icing on the cake for me has been the sloppy, disingenuous theorizing of the few contrarians that you hold in high esteem, like Roy Spencer and John Christy, who have had their theorizing about global warming resulting from natural causes and atmospheric dimming effects of CO2 counterbalancing the warming impacts (low climate sensitivity) refuted. What bothers me most about the kind of science they and the other handful of deniers are doing, is there complete lack of curiosity or willingness to explore the other impacts of rising greenhouse gas levels....like the deleterious effects on the world's oceans already mentioned.

Even if these clowns were right, and CO2 results in lowering climate sensitivity to warming, there would still be the longterm catastrophic consequences of poisoning the world's oceans! And yet Christy, Spencer and the Pielke's jr. and sr., lobby for either staying the course on oil and coal exploitation or maintaining the status quo. The only conclusion I come to about this clique is that they are dangerous cranks who are motivated by some combination of money and political ideology to advocate for policies that will wreak havoc for future generations!

Let me toss one up that I think is very relevant to our present situation in light of confusing claims made about Paleoclimate research - i.e. that CO2 levels have been much higher in the past than they are at present. This one is popular with a major climate disinformation site funded by a consortium of coal companies. Even with the problems getting accurate CO2 readings from geologic evidence, there have been times in the past when carbon levels were likely much higher than they are now....one that stands out is the time around the Permian/Triassic Extinction, when atmospheric CO2 levels were likely as high as 2000 ppm. or 2% of atmospheric gases. The unspoken assumption from the presentation is that before we start worrying about a runaway greenhouse effect similar to the P/T, CO2 levels would have to be much higher than they are now.....or maybe not!

One factor that is still completely ignored,and one of the reasons why James Lovelocke says he started thinking up a Gaia Hypothesis over 40 years ago, is that the Sun has increased its energy output at least 30% since life on Earth got started almost 4 billion years ago, and there is evidence in the basic composition of atmospheric gases that the planet's biosphere has been trying to tweak the dials of negative and positive feedback effects to optimize conditions for life.Gaia Theory

The Gaia system of feedback loops may work to regulate the planet for life under normal circumstances, but is slow to respond to shocks that result from asteroid/comet impacts, sudden increases in vulcanism (such as when continents split apart or crash together), and dealing with a lifeform that is growing and consuming resources at levels never dealt with before. Right now we are learning that natural carbon sequestration will take 100,000 years to bring CO2 levels down to pre-industrial levels. Seems obvious that if we have reached the level of sophistication to artificially engineer the environment, we also have the responsibility to clean up after ourselves....or face the consequences!

In "Revenge Of Gaia" written by Lovelock five years ago -- the early conditions for life were threatened by cooling and ice formation, and the atmosphere just happened to have no oxygen and maintained high levels of methane in the atmosphere, besides CO2 to maximize the greenhouse effect. About 2 billion years ago, there was a transition, when methane disappeared and oxygen started becoming a major component...which just happened to be around the time when Earth was truly "fine tuned" for life, and did not need any adjusting to keep the oceans from icing over. And ever since that time, as the Sun gets progressively hotter, the negative feedback effects of carbon sequestration have overtaken the natural greenhouse effect by keeping atmospheric CO2 below 300 ppm for several million years...until the start of the Industrial Revolution. And what do you know -- reports have come out in recent years which claim that Co2 rates will have to fall below 300 before the ice and permafrost which has been lost, refreezes! The takeaway is that we have had little threat of a runaway cooling "Snowball Earth" in at least 500 million years, while the risks of increasing temperatures to levels which can no longer support multicellular life keep increasing.

I don't know where the consensus of opinion is on either the "weak gaia" or "strong gaia" theories, but Lovelock, and others who have tried to develop a theory from this approach, have been examining how their theory explains all ranges of data, unlike the approach of climate or evolution deniers.

Sure, and I'll see what I can make of them, but I'll come at it from the same perspective I did a few years ago, when a chemical engineer who just happened to be a creationist told me I had to understand Shannon Information Theory before I could critique the mathematical "proof" of intelligent design created by William Dembski, and called "Complex Specified Information." To me, it just appeared that an engineer who had greater knowledge of math was trying to play a shell game with technical information and jargon. And soon enough, I was able to find blogging mathematicians who did have the technical knowledge to take down a math system that was apparently pre-designed to produce the desired results. It wasn't something that I could make much head or tail of afterwards, but it became obvious that Dembski could not fool other experts in information theory...even ones who were not even involved in evolution/creation debates. There is so much information out there, that the average consumer has to carefully select which aisle to delve into because there are so many opportunities to waste time going down dead ends!

"Even with the problems getting accurate CO2 readings from geologic evidence, there have been times in the past when carbon levels were likely much higher than they are now....one that stands out is the time around the Permian/Triassic Extinction, when atmospheric CO2 levels were likely as high as 2000 ppm. or 2% of atmospheric gases. "

FYI, this killed 95% of ALL life on earth and competely stopped the ocean currents for millions of years. Caused by the siberian traps.

"The gigantic lava flow in Siberia lasted upward of a million years and flooded an area about the size of the lower 48 United States with layer upon layer of dark basalt lava — thousands of feet thick.



Some geologists suspect the eruption was caused by an extra-large plume of hot material welling up from the edge of the Earth's core. But what makes it especially important is that the Siberian Traps is the prime suspect in wiping out 90 percent of all living species 251 million years ago — the most severe extinction event in Earth's history."

The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, for example, sent millions of tons of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. One of the largest volcanic eruptions of the 20th century, it caused a recordable drop in global temperatures (a few tenths of a degree) for several years. And it was at least thousands of times smaller than the Siberian Traps eruption.

Discovery Channel :: Supervolcano

 

[shawn001]

a little on the sun.

Nasa

"Each cycle exhibits subtle differences in intensity and duration. As of early 2010, the solar brightness since 2005 has been slightly lower, not higher, than it was during the previous 11-year minimum in solar activity, which occurred in the late 1990s. This implies that the Sun’s impact between 2005 and 2010 might have been to slightly decrease the warming that greenhouse emissions alone would have caused.

"
Scientists theorize that there may be a multi-decadal trend in solar output, though if one exists, it has not been observed as yet. Even if the Sun were getting brighter, however, the pattern of warming observed on Earth since 1950 does not match the type of warming the Sun alone would cause. When the Sun’s energy is at its peak (solar maxima), temperatures in both the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) become warmer. Instead, observations show the pattern expected from greenhouse gas effects: Earth’s surface and troposphere have warmed, but the stratosphere has cooled.

Global Warming : Feature Articles

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Almost forgot

Interesting graph. Where does it come from? According to the MET/CRU global data set, this is the temperature record (HadCRUT3):

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

As opposed to real time data from the actual nasa satellites? As well as the actual nasa research around the globe on posted on those websites? That is the data on the vital signs of sea ice melt, the ozone, carbon dioxide, global surface tempertures and more

That would be part of "the research and academic materials" I refer to. However, I don't think you are very familiar with at least the satellite data sets. The satellite record goes back to the late 70s. However, the satellite data is not from NASA itself. Actually, neither are the satellites (not exactly). The satellite data comes from the NOAA. However, once again one has to go deeper. The satellite data comes from MSU analysis. The NOAA doesn't perform this analysis. UAH does (see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/msu/index.html). RSS later began an independent analysis.

In fact, the two men responsible for the satellite record (not just the analysis, but the tools and techniques which allowed us to use MSU data and turn it into temperature records) are Dr. John Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer of UAH. Both men are so-called "climate deniers." They are also the two who began and continued to build the satellite data sets from NOAA MSU readings. Roy Spencer worked at NASA but (according to him) left after it became clear that his views (he believes that the evidence for anthropogenic warming is simply not strong) were no longer welcome there. The NOAA still uses UAH (and both Christy and Spencer) for MSU analysis.

You do know that the Bush admin, changed Hansen's research papers from nasa. The guy in the Bush admin who did it use to work for the oil companies and they change the research to downplay global warming. Lets see enviromentaists verses big oil? Hmmm

I know that Hansen made a big issue of the Bush admin's "interference" with NASA's research. As Spencer (then NASA employee) put it: "In my congressional testimony as a NASA scientist, I was reminded to limit my testimony to my area of expertise, and not to be drawn into policy discusions, in which I was not an expert...It is almost inevitable, however, that during congression testimony a senator will ask, "What would you do about global warming policy if you were men?" And when that finally happened to me, I so artfully dodged the question that members of the committee laughed. They said I sounded like a politician...In contrast, other NASA employees that were more in line with the satus quo in their global warming views didn't seem to be dissuaded from offering more dramatic opinions in their testimony. For instance, Dr. James Hansen of NASA in 2006 made a pretty big deal about being pressured by the Administration regarding his interactions with the media...Regarding any "meddling" by the Administration in NASA's business, NASA is an independent agency within the government's Executive Branch, and so NASA and its employees answer to the president. He's the boss. But as our godfather of global warming research and publicawareness, Jim Hansen had more political capital to spend then I did, and complained to the medea...Who knows? If I felt like I was on a mission to Save the Earth and was in his shoes, I might well have done the same thing. But instead, in contrast to Dr. Hansen, I finally tired of the restrictions on what I felt I could and couldn't say to the media, and I voluntarily resigned from NASA in 2001."

Some of it is computer models, but that is certainly not where all the EVIDENCE comes from.

Of course not. After all, models require data input and theory. And both exist independent of the models. However, few people who talk about AGW actually know what it is. Green houses gases (plural) are not really the issue, or at least are a small part. The only reason we have for concern (and by concern I mean the projected temperature increases according to groups like the IPCC) is because of the increase which will result (and has already begun) from CO2. Not CO2 directly, mind you, which is thought to (by itself) cause little warming. Rather, the increase in CO2 will interact with climate systems (cloud dynamics, water vapor, etc), and create a positive feedback loop, thereby resulting in a much greater (and dangerous) increase. The feedback parameters are coefficients used to determine this increase. However, the feedback parameters aren't directly measured. They are computed from the models, which are in turn based on what we know about the climate. Basically, the CO2 increase can't account (by itself) for the temperature increase from ~70s to ~1998. In order to get the computer models to match the temperature record, the modelers have to adjust the parameters. If they adjust them to be strongly positive, then the models match the records. In other words, while we have a lot of data and theory, the feedback parameters which are the basis for concern, depend heavily on model output (which is how they are computed).

That were hacked they were talking to each other not to the scientific community and nothing in there was against global warming and they were totally cleared of any wrong doing

They appear to have been collected in response to FOI requests. In other words, the hacker didn't just find emails all over the place, but rather is seems as if a prepared file was either illegally released without the CRUs or METs consent, or was hacked. But if true, it hardly matters.

And having heard scientists talk about other scientists work in private conversations and emails fairly frequently, it is certainly true that (as one would expect) sometimes things are said which, especially taken out of context, alarming/controversial/rude. However, the emails seemed to me to have contained somewhat more than that. Hiding data and advice on how to do so, or replacing journal staff/blackballing journals isn't typical. But then, I'm not used to personal exchanges in such a politically charged research area, and that could explain the difference.

is there a scientific consensus to evolution? Do you think it will change?

Yes there is, and yes I do. It has changed. But if you mean by "change" will scientists ever conclude that evolution doesn't happen, then no they won't. But of course it has changed, as when the theory was proposed over a century ago, we knew nothing about genetics, and therefore nothing about the mechanisms. Darwin published Origin of Species in 1859. In the early 20th century there was another scientific theory which was "developed" based on Darwin's book and was specifically a theory of human evolution: Eugenics (I'm sure wikipedia has something on it, but if you want academic references I can provide those). The theory was widely accepted by a diverse number of scientists, and supported by government funding and legislation. In fact, one might even say that a particular government, commonly known as the NAZI party, adopted this "science" as THE government policy, and proceeded to exterminate millions. After WWII, all of the sudden institution after institution released statements on race counter to eugenics. No more government funding, no more research, no more researchers (thank goodness). So this particularly loathesome take on the ToE isn't around anymore. Which represents not only a change in scientific understandingof the ToE, but also a widespread acceptence within academic communities of pseudoscience.

AGW is NOT the pseudoscience of eugenics. Nor was there ever a "consensus" on Eugenics. However, it was taught in classrooms, supported by some of the leading scientific minds and scientific organizations, and by governments (including the US) across the world. And it was utterly wrong, and driven by politics rather than good research. The point is, science isn't about consensus or the public statements of institutions. It is about the research.

 

[painted wolf]

And having heard scientists talk about other scientists work in private conversations and emails fairly frequently, it is certainly true that (as one would expect) sometimes things are said which, especially taken out of context, alarming/controversial/rude. However, the emails seemed to me to have contained somewhat more than that. Hiding data and advice on how to do so, or replacing journal staff/blackballing journals isn't typical. But then, I'm not used to personal exchanges in such a politically charged research area, and that could explain the difference.

Being someone who has worked with "messy data" I can say that they weren't talking about how to hide data. Even if that is how it may sound to outside ears.

A lot of data contains "noise" and learning how to identify it and minimize it so you can show what is important in a graph is pretty standard stuff.

I worked with actograms.... something I hope to never have to repeat. :run:
I have nothing but respect for those that are willing to.

wa:do

ps... eugenics predates Darwin. Though Darwin was used to try to legitimize it.

 

[shawn001]

LegionOnomaMoi,

your graph goes to 2000.

The ones I have been posting go to 2011, but your not looking at the sites and the data I am posting.

NASA's Role

Taking a global perspective on Earth's climate

NASA currently has more than a dozen Earth science spacecraft/instruments in orbit studying all aspects of the Earth system (oceans, land, atmosphere, biosphere, cyrosphere), with several more planned for launch in the next few years.

Climate Change: NASA's Role


Agencies Join Forces for Climate Education
04.08.11


NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) have joined forces in an effort to streamline climate education into something that is relatable, recognizable and effective.

The collaboration recently brought together more than 200 climate change education scientists and educators from projects funded by the three agencies who spent several days networking, sharing ideas, reviewing projects and looking for ways to leverage each other's work. All had the same goal: teaching the public -- i.e. K-12 teachers, undergraduates, the media, college professors, informal educators -- about the science of global climate change and preparing the next generation of scientists and educators working in climate-related fields.

NASA - Agencies Join Forces for Climate Education


You know Bush was anti global warming until he just couldn't be anymore.

Frontline

Profiles of three scientists and one official who say their work on climate change was suppressed by the Bush administration.


According to current and former government scientists, Bush administration officials worked to bury a major report on the possible consequences of rising temperatures; improperly edited major reports to downplay the role of human activity in rising temperatures; and tried to keep scientists working on hard-hitting climate research from speaking to the media.

A 2007 probe by the nonprofits the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project surveyed nearly 300 researchers and found that nearly half experienced -- or perceived -- pressure to purge references to global warming and climate change from reports and other documents.

James Hansen, Ph.D.
Climate scientist and director of the Goddard Institute for Space Science (GISS), part of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Dr. Hansen also works as a professor at Columbia University, in the Earth and Environmental Sciences Department.

Area of Expertise: Dr. Hansen is an expert in physics and astronomy. He studies changes in the Earth's atmosphere by using data from satellites and is considered one of the pioneers of global warming theory; Dr. Hansen testified in front of Congress in the 1980s about the issue. He is also outspoken about his belief that the earth may now be near a "tipping point" if levels of greenhouse gases are not drastically reduced soon.
Incidents of Suppression: Hansen has publicly cited numerous incidents of suppression of his research about global warming by senior NASA officials and press officers.


On Oct. 26, 2006, Hansen was quoted in an article by Andrew Revkin of The New York Times as saying that then-NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe asked him not to discuss the dangerous consequences of climate change.

In December 2005, Hansen presented a lecture on the importance of reducing emissions to the American Geophysical Union and announced on ABC News that data showed 2005 to be the "warmest year on record." According to Hansen's account, published in a March 2007 Climate Science Watch report (PDF file), NASA public affairs officer George Deutsch "told Hansen that there had been a 'storm of anger at headquarters' and threatened him with 'dire consequences' if he kept making similar remarks."


Fallout: Because of Hansen's very public complaints, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin e-mailed the entire agency in early 2006 to say that press officials may not "alter, filter or adjust" the work of NASA scientists. Dr. Hansen later told investigators with the Climate Science Watch project that "as of noon of March 16, 2006, 285 NASA scientists and engineers had signed a 'Statement of support for NASA's commitment to openness.' The statement 'fully supports Dr. Hansen in his professional capacity to continue alerting the public about global warming' and encourages 'all NASA affiliated scientists and engineers to openly present their expertise for the public good.'"


Reports - Suppression Of Science | Hot Politics | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[shawn001]

Who were the officials at NASA headquarters?

In one call, George Deutsch, a recently appointed public affairs officer at NASA headquarters, rejected a request from a producer at National Public Radio to interview Dr. Hansen, said Leslie McCarthy, a public affairs officer responsible for the Goddard Institute. Citing handwritten notes taken during the conversation, Ms. McCarthy said Mr. Deutsch called N.P.R. "the most liberal" media outlet in the country. She said that in that call and others, Mr. Deutsch said his job was "to make the president look good" and that as a White House appointee that might be Mr. Deutsch's priority.
​

You should read somethings about MR George Deutsch



also

Investigations

Inspectors general at NASA and NOAA have begun an investigation into whether the Bush administration has suppressed government scientists' research on global warming. (Source: IGs Probe Allegations On Global Warming Data by Julie Eilperin, Washington Post, Nov. 2, 2006, p.A15)
United States Geological Survey

In December 2006, Mark D. Myers, the new director of the USGS, enacted new rules that require political review of any scientific communications outside the agency. (Source: New controls on publishing research worry US government geological unit's scientists (AP))
Fish and Wildlife Service

"Internal memorandums circulated in the Alaskan division of the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service appear to require government biologists or other employees traveling in countries around the Arctic not to discuss climate change, polar bears or sea ice if they are not designated to do so." - New York Times, March 8, 2007, (Bush muzzles more scientists on warming)
Commerce Department Gag Order

• According to a new rule (issued on March 29, 2007), scientists at NOAA, the National Weather Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service must obtain agency pre-approval to speak or write, whether on or off-duty, concerning any scientific topic deemed "of official interest." (Source: CLIMATE AND OCEAN SCIENTISTS PUT UNDER NEW SPEECH RESTRAINTS)

Republican War on Science - dKosopedia





October 14, 2009

Report suppressed by Bush administration shows global-warming risks

The EPA report, technically known as an "endangerment finding," was prepared in 2007, but the Bush White House refused to make it public because the administration opposed regulating the gases most scientists see as the major cause of global warming.

The Environmental Protection Agency on Tuesday released a copy of a long-suppressed report by officials in the George W. Bush administration concluding that, based on the science, the government should begin regulating greenhouse-gas emissions because global warming posed serious risks to the country.


The report, technically known as an "endangerment finding," was prepared in 2007, but the Bush White House refused to make it public because the administration opposed regulating the gases most scientists see as the major cause of global warming.

The existence of the finding — and the refusal of the Bush White House to make it public — were previously known. The Bush EPA draft was released in response to a public-records request under the Freedom of Information Act.

The document "demonstrates that in 2007 the science was as clear as it is today," said Adora Andy, an EPA spokeswoman. "The conclusions reached then by EPA scientists should have been made public and should have been considered."

Nation & World | Report suppressed by Bush administration shows global-warming risks | Seattle Times Newspaper


"In February, House Science Chairman Sherwood Boehlert, (R-N.Y.), and other congressional leaders asked NASA to guarantee scientific openness. They complained that a public affairs officer changed or filtered information on global warming and the Big Bang.

The officer, George Deutsch, a political appointee, had resigned after being accused of trying to limit reporters' access to James Hansen, a prominent NASA climate scientist, and insisting that a Web designer insert the word "theory" with any mention of the Big Bang.

Investigations begin into whether Bush administration muzzled climate research


SO George Deutsch, a political appointee and he "resigned after being accused of trying to limit reporters' access to James Hansen, a prominent NASA climate scientist."

also

George Deutsch, a controversial George W. Bush appointee at NASA, resigned his post as press officer the same day that Texas A&M University confirmed that he never graduated from the school. The resume of the 24-year old had claimed he received a "Bachelor of Arts in journalism, Class of 2003."


Dr. Michael Griffin, NASA chief, appeared to back Dr. Hansen's claims of internal censorship, when he sent a strongly worded email message to all NASA employees stating "It is not the job of public-affairs officers to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical staff." Several other NASA employees reported similar tampering after the incident. NASA personnel told the New York Times that "Mr. Deutsch played a small but significant role in an intensifying effort at the agency to exert political control over the flow of information to the public."
Climate science has long been linked with the space program because many of the underlying mathematical modeling techniques were originally developed to help understand the atmospheres of other planets, such as Venus.

George Deutsch resigns NASA post after Texas A&M refutes his resume - Wikinews, the free news source

 

[shawn001]

NASA images reveal consistent climate warming among different temperature records
Jeremy Hance
mongabay.com
January 19, 2011

New images released by NASA illustrate how four different global temperature records show remarkably consistent warming around the world. Currently, global temperatures are analyzed by four major organizations: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Center’s Climatic Research Unit, and the Japanese Meteorological Agency. Although each organization has garnered slightly different results year-to-year, all show a consistent warming trend globally, including that the most recent decade as the warmest since record-keeping began in the late Nineteenth Century.

"The official records vary slightly because of subtle differences in the way we analyze the data, but they also agree extraordinarily well," said Reto Ruedy with NASA’s GISS.

For example, both NASA and the NOAA has found that last year, 2010, was tied for the warmest on record. In contrast, the Japanese Meteorological Agency found that last year was the second warmest year on record. While this may confuse the public and sow doubt about climate change findings, for scientists it’s the trend—not annual records—that really count. The fact that these four different records all show extremely similar warming trends actually boosts rather than undercuts climatologists’ confidence in regard to global warming.

Changes in year-to-year findings are often due to how different organizations measure areas where temperature records are few and far between. For example NASA GISS’s fills in the blank spots with data from the nearest temperature station, while the UK’s Met Office leaves some of these areas out, such as parts of the Arctic Ocean.

"There’s no doubt that estimates of Arctic warming are uncertain, and should be regarded with caution," explains James Hansen, head of NASA GISS. "Still, the rapid pace of Arctic ice retreat leaves little question that temperatures in the region are rising fast, perhaps faster than we assume in our analysis."

Overall the different data sets agree: the world is warming rapidly.

[FONT=verdana,sans-serif,arial]
NASA images reveal consistent climate warming among different temperature records
Jeremy Hance
mongabay.com
January 19, 2011



Four different global temperature records show the Earth is warming. Graph courtesy of NASA. Click to enlarge.




New images released by NASA illustrate how four different global temperature records show remarkably consistent warming around the world. Currently, global temperatures are analyzed by four major organizations: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), NOAA National Climatic Data Center, Met Office Hadley Center’s Climatic Research Unit, and the Japanese Meteorological Agency. Although each organization has garnered slightly different results year-to-year, all show a consistent warming trend globally, including that the most recent decade as the warmest since record-keeping began in the late Nineteenth Century.

"The official records vary slightly because of subtle differences in the way we analyze the data, but they also agree extraordinarily well," said Reto Ruedy with NASA’s GISS.

For example, both NASA and the NOAA has found that last year, 2010, was tied for the warmest on record. In contrast, the Japanese Meteorological Agency found that last year was the second warmest year on record. While this may confuse the public and sow doubt about climate change findings, for scientists it’s the trend—not annual records—that really count. The fact that these four different records all show extremely similar warming trends actually boosts rather than undercuts climatologists’ confidence in regard to global warming.

Changes in year-to-year findings are often due to how different organizations measure areas where temperature records are few and far between. For example NASA GISS’s fills in the blank spots with data from the nearest temperature station, while the UK’s Met Office leaves some of these areas out, such as parts of the Arctic Ocean.

"There’s no doubt that estimates of Arctic warming are uncertain, and should be regarded with caution," explains James Hansen, head of NASA GISS. "Still, the rapid pace of Arctic ice retreat leaves little question that temperatures in the region are rising fast, perhaps faster than we assume in our analysis."

Overall the different data sets agree: the world is warming rapidly.




NASA GISS data from November 2010. Image courtesy of NASA. Click to enlarge.

NASA images reveal consistent climate warming among different temperature records
[/FONT]
​

​

​

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Oh yeah! I spend all my free time reading IPCC reports just like you do.

I am aware that by the time the U.N. gathers the research papers for these reports, they are already at least 3 years old

Then perhaps you can explain why ar4, the IPCC report publiched in 2007, cites so many research studies from 2006?

but I expect the scientists and science writers who do are conveying an accurate presentation of those reports

Unless those scientists are publishing reports which don't support AGW. Then they are liars funded by "big oil." And I don't mean publishing blog posts or books published for the public. I mean articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals like The International Journal of Climatology or Journal of Climate or any number of others.

The tiny minority of contrarians have the burden of proof to present their own theories, not to try to confuse readers with misapplied technical information (which is the clear objective of global warming deniers and creationists).

I've read research by some of the most well-known "deniers" who are maligned all over the place on "blogs" like Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, Michaels, etc., and some of the less wel-known (but I'm sure you can find some blog which links them to big oil or something to undermine their work) like Svensmark or Calder, published recently in scientific journals. Again, not some journal someone made up to publish "big oil" research, but "big name" journals within the climate community. I haven't seen any research supporting creationism in scientific journals. The theories are there. And although according to these authors a lot of their work gets rejected because it isn't mainstream, they have still published research which is highly technical, designed for the climate community, peer-reviewed, and contra AGW. I can provide you with some references to some sample articles from scientific journals as examples if you wish.

I didn't change my opinion on global warming because of scientific models. The game-changer for me is that there is clear, uncontrovertible evidence that CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels are rising

You do realize that the CO2 rise itself is, according to AGW theory, not the real issue? Its the feedback effects from CO2 that, according to the theory, will cause the temperatures to increase to a dangerous or catastrophic level if left unchecked. So either your opinion is just based on ignorance, which isn't actually that big of a deal (as no one can have even a fairly decent understanding of ALL scientific fields), or your opinion on global warming is based on the models. If it isn't based on the models, which are the reason we have the feedback parameters we do (and the feedback parameters are the reason for us to worry about dangerous to catastrophic effects from climate change), then what is it based on? It would have to be something other than mainstream science or the scientific consensus.

and yet there are still loonies running around saying there's no evidence of global warming!

Actually I don't think I've read any scientists who has said this in any publication (including blogs). As far as I know, none of the scientists refered to as (more politely) "skeptics" or "deniers" (a term to equate them with those who deny the holocaust, which is just disgusting) argue that the earth isn't warming. Rather, they disagree with either the amount or the cause or both. You realize that all the things you like massive increases in greenhouses gases, melting of sea ice, and so on, have all happened naturally before? So it's not "luny" a priori to think that massive climate changes could be due to natural causes.

And the icing on the cake for me has been the sloppy, disingenuous theorizing of the few contrarians that you hold in high esteem, like Roy Spencer and John Christy, who have had their theorizing about global warming resulting from natural causes and atmospheric dimming effects of CO2 counterbalancing the warming impacts (low climate sensitivity) refuted.

I hold Spencer and Christy in higher regard than some others not so much for their research but because without their work we wouldn't have the satellite records. They are the people primarily responsible for turning MSU data into a temperature record, and it wasn't until after their techniques that another group, RSS, was able to do the same.

That said, I don't see how you can call their work, or the work of any other scientists who disagrees with AGW theory, " sloppy, disingenuous theorizing" when you haven't read it. Or how you can call it "refuted" when you haven't read the research which is supposed to represent the "refutation."

What bothers me most about the kind of science they and the other handful of deniers are doing

What bothers me about statments like this by people like you (and by that I mean people who strongly believe that the AGW theory is correct, or if incorrect only because it underestimates the dangers, but who haven't actually read the research) is that you talk about the "kind of science" they do without having read it. At all. Or even being aware what's out there, both in terms of the so-called "hateful deniers" or their research.

is there complete lack of curiosity or willingness to explore the other impacts of rising greenhouse gas levels

They have. Which you would know, had you actually read what they've written. In fact, Christy (who you maligned above) was a lead author in the IPCC's 2001 report. He was asked to consult on the IPCCs AR4 and AR5 as well (which he did).

The only conclusion I come to about this clique is

...based on absolutely no knowledge of any of their research, apart from what you've read in popular publications or websites of the type which refer to them as "deniers."


Even with the problems getting accurate CO2 readings from geologic evidence, there have been times in the past when carbon levels were likely much higher than they are now....one that stands out is the time around the Permian/Triassic Extinction, when atmospheric CO2 levels were likely as high as 2000 ppm. or 2% of atmospheric gases. The unspoken assumption from the presentation is that before we start worrying about a runaway greenhouse effect similar to the P/T, CO2 levels would have to be much higher than they are now.....or maybe not!

One factor that is still completely ignored,and one of the reasons why James Lovelocke says

So "Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever" is

over 80 years old

and

his expertise has nothing to do with climate research

, but Jame Lovelocke, who is even older and who received his PhD in medicine, is definitely someone we want to listen to about the climate and other environmental issues.

The Gaia system of feedback loops may work to regulate the planet for life under normal circumstances

Umm...what exactly constitutes "normal circumstances" in a highly chaotic system? Or from a dynamic systems perspective, where or what are the periodic points? For most of this planets history, life has been extremely simple. Let's we have the introduction of oxygen into the atmosphere a couple billion years ago or about halfway into the earth's history, which according to a 2005 study published in the PNAS was "the most radical transformation of Earth's biogeochemical cycles." We have multiple mass extinctions. We know that many of the identified climactic cycles and changes of thre past are caused by the sun in a various ways (everything from fluctuations in its energy to fluctuations in the magnetic shield it provides the earth). We have massive changes from the "snowball earth" when the earth was nearly all ice for a few million years. So what exactly is "normal conditions?"

In "Revenge Of Gaia" written by Lovelock five years ago

A man whose PhD was in medicine and who was then in his 80s. Like the physicist you maligned, only without a specialty as related to the mechanisms which drive change on the planet (physics).

Sure, and I'll see what I can make of them

Well that was lucky. My access to AGU journals is through Proquest, which only goes back to Nov. 2009, one month AFTER Murphy 2009. However, the full article is available here. The Nature article (Domingues et al 2008) I couldn't find online, but I did download it for you, and I put it online here. Let me know if it doesn't work (I'm not used to file sharing and this is the first time I've used this account).