Global Warming | Fact or Fiction?

[work in progress]

Satellites have their own issues in making measurements which are problematic, which are not being discussed here.

Grant Foster​

1 and Stefan Rahmstorf2​

1​

Tempo Analytics, 303 Campbell Road, Garland, ME 04939, USA​

2​

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PO Box 601203, 14412 Potsdam, Germany​

Received 27 September 2011
Accepted for publication 16 November 2011
Published 6 December 2011
Online at​

stacks.iop.org/ERL/6/044022​

Abstract​

We analyze five prominent time series of global temperature (over land and ocean) for their common time interval since 1979: three surface temperature records (from NASA/GISS, NOAA/NCDC and HadCRU) and two lower-troposphere (LT) temperature records based on satellite microwave sensors (from RSS and UAH). All five series show consistent global warming trends ranging from 0.014 to 0.018 K yr​

��1. When the data are adjusted to remove the estimated impact of known factors on short-term temperature variations (El Ni˜no/southern oscillation, volcanic aerosols and solar variability), the global warming signal becomes even more evident as noise is reduced. Lower-troposphere temperature responds more strongly to El Ni˜no/southern oscillation and to volcanic forcing than surface temperature data. The adjusted data show warming at very similar rates to the unadjusted data, with smaller probable errors, and the warming rate is steady over the whole time interval. In all adjusted series, the​

two hottest years are 2009 and 2010.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf


Work in progress, I think your on the right path in the oceans heating up and becoming more acidic from absorbing more carbon, which creates carbonic acid.

Thanks, and thanks for the other links also! I am not a scientist or a statistician, so I'm limited in how far I can evaluate the more technical information. But the point I have been trying to get across to LOM is that one anomaly in climate studies does not refute the evidence gathered from all of the other lines of investigation. The critics of the consensus on climate change have to do more than find one or two examples that may not fit AGW models (I have a hard time trying to decide who's right in argument about charts and graphs); they need an alternative theory that explains ALL of the evidence being gathered. If the changes in weather and climate today are not primarily a result of the huge increase in greenhouse gas levels in modern times, then I want to see some evidence that CO2's greenhouse effect does not increase when CO2 levels are beyond a certain range (this is actually what Roy Spencer is proposing), and how this can be the case without violating simple laws of physics.

 

[work in progress]

There is no drop. The point is that there is no rise. The trend of the past 10+ years has been flat. Temperatures were high, but didn't increase. That doesn't mean they decreased though. Letme be clear about what I'm saying about our direct temperature records. For the total surface records, we see a rise from ~1910 until ~1940. Then a drop and a period of low temperatures until ~1977. Then we see a warming from until about ~1998. After that, the global temperature remains pretty much the same. Some years are a bit hotter, some a bit colder, but there is no warmin trend and there is no cooling trend either.

One of the unfortunate, unforseen consequences of the fight against air pollution, is that it has lead to a reduction of soot and dust in the atmosphere, and allowed in more sunlight to warm the atmosphere. The reduction in air pollution in Europe and North America since the 70's, may explain most of what the critics call anomalies in AGW theory.

But, obviously this does not offer an excuse for increasing air pollution as a means of trying to geoengineer our way out of this mess. As mentioned previously, and in Shawn's latest links, the carbon increases can kill us off just as fast without any warming....since they increase ocean acidification...and a world with dead oceans would be similar to that of the Permian/Triassic Extinction, and almost certainly take out the human race along with most other lifeforms.

Your graph is a bit out dated. The one I provided was the most recent. And both graphs show most of the observed warming attributed to humans (the satellite data only goes back to 1979, but the warming trend started a bit earlier). But there's a problem with the following:

Right, but other climate data I have posted, shows 2011 being among the highest ever recorded (and the warmest La Nina year recorded). You may have found one line of measurement in your satellite data that bucks the recent trend; but what about everything else? The ground-based measurements and ocean measurements do not show a leveling or decline in temperatures globally. And what about research done, like the one Shawn linked, which shows a clear connection between greenhouse gas levels and temperature, when other factors affecting weather...like the El Nino/La Nina effect and volcanoes are removed?

So why does this matter? Well, for one thing I can always generate a line, even when the scores show no trend whatsoever. However, the problem here (that is, the problem with that brown line), is that because it is a linear (a straight line), it skews the real picture. If you look at the more recent satellite graph that I posted, you'll notice a wavy line instead of a curved line. The reason for this is because the trend isn't linear. It doesn't consistently go up or down. However, a linear regression line, like that brown line, CAN'T show this.

I understand that there is a lot of subjectivity in establishing trend lines, since that is where most of the arguments and disputes lie...but I can't get alot out of trying to evaluate arguments on how the charting is done. I'm math-challenged to begin with, and on these sorts of issues I'm stuck with the consensus of expert opinion...much like the evolution/intelligent design dispute -- if there is a sharp division with most of the experts on one side, and a few contrarians on the other, I say the contrarians have the greatest burden of proof, since they are claiming to see things that most of their colleagues are missing. That's not saying that the majority is never wrong, but the denier/skeptics are the ones with most of the money and resources on their side; they should have all they need to change the consensus and develop a new, improved climate theory.

The problem with other measurements is two-fold (usually). First, all other measurement data is local. That is, the only measure the temperature around the instrument. So unless we put measuring devices on every square foot of the globe, averaging these sets isn't a simple matter. They aren't evenly distributed, they are subject to all kinds of non-related local temperature changes, etc. The first great thing about satellites is while they (like all other instruments) can malfunction, they have excellent spatial resolution. They are the only devices capable of non-local global measurement (i.e., measurements which reflect not the temperature around the device but the temperature of the atmosphere).

But, when we are talking about factors, like the warming trend being double in the north what is is in lower latitudes, this shows that we have to do more than say that temperature increases in our zone will be balanced out by lower temps elsewhere, because the warming in the north is almost certainly connected with positive feedback effects already established. For instance, melting sea ice cover which is replaced by open waters, means more sunlight will be absorbed and not reflected away. The warming of the Arctic may have a time lag of a few years or decades, but the effects are eventually felt further south as the ice disappears. Imagine how much warmer our weather will eventually be when there is no Arctic ice cap left to moderate our weather. The beginning of ice-free summers on the Arctic Ocean was considered a threat that would begin sometime around the turn of the next century. Now, the rapid erosion of sea ice has put that start up to 2030 or even some time in the 2020's.

The other big advantage is that AGW theory involves atmospheric warming (specifically the lower atmospher). In other words, the surface should warm less than the lower troposphere, where the "radiative blanket" of ever-thickening co2 emits infrared enegery. In fact, a big problem is that while the satellite data and the surface temperature data are pretty well correlated, they shouldn't be. The satellite data should show more warming (according to model predictions) but it doesn't (despite numerous corrections to the data set which have all pushed the trend up).

If there is an anomaly here (there may be other explanations for ground retaining more heat) how does that in itself undo every other finding on climate change?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The reduction in air pollution in Europe and North America since the 70's, may explain most of what the critics call anomalies in AGW theory.

There are many explanations for why this or that trend doesn't quite match the theory or doesn't match it at all. They may all be right. That's not quite what I find unsettling. Let me go back to an example I used earlier: issues in the satellite data. As I mentioned in my last post, satellites (despite being the best instruments for temperature data sets), can suffer from mechanical failure or mechanical issues like any other instrument. When the satellite record was first published (1990 I believe), it showed a LOT less warming than expected. Then another cimate scientist (Trenberth, although he may just have been lead author) pointed out that there may be a calibration problem which accounted for this. So Spencer & Christy went back, did more testing and research looking for this problem. They found it, and adjusted the data set accordingly (i.e., raising the temperatures). No problem, all the data sets are adjusted, and as this was a brand new thing, it was pretty much a sure thing that there would be issues. Then when RSS came along, they realized that the satellites were not a stable as assumed. So both they and Christy & Spencer starting keeping track of the orbits so that they could continually adjust the temperatures accordingly. Again, it's the kind of thing that happens.

What is unusual, however, is that all these adjustments went one way. They always increased the temperatures. I would think that, prima facie, this strike anyone who works with complicated equipment as strange. Instruments do fail, and the do malfunction. But for them to do so in ways that constantly cause a systematic error in one direction is not normal.

Similarly, the entire warming trend that is attributed almost completely to humans is a ~30 year period in the later half of the 20th century. Every other trend has natural explanations. The same has been done to explain some, much, or most of the observed warming attributed to humans. Yet 1) these are quickly dismissed and 2) most researchers aren't even looking.

Right, but other climate data I have posted, shows 2011 being among the highest ever recorded (and the warmest La Nina year recorded).

It doesn't matter if it is, anymore than that 1998 is second (or first or third, it's rather hard to tell). The issue is the trend. Our models (and the majority of climate scientist) predicted that temperatures would continue to rise. They kept predicting this, from Hansen's 1988 announcement onward, and became more sure as the models became more complex and more research was conducted. Then the observed warming trend stopped. After about half a decade or so without the observed warming trend predicted, this couldn't be ignored. So climate scientists went to work trying to figure out why none of the temperature records were showing the warming that they ought to, according to the models. And sure enough, outcomes research like Hansen (2010) finding that the warming is "hidden" by natural fluctuations in the climate. So the warming trend didn't really stop, we just aren't seeing it because natural climate activity is obscuring it.

Ok, let's say that's the case. Again, my biggest problem is that this was explained after the fact. The whole point of our models, our research, the IPCC, all of it, is to show us what will happen. It's about prediction. We're concerned about the dangers/catastrophes to come because according to our models they will. Yet so far, we keep explaining things after the fact. If we have to do this for the current trend then it means we don't know enough about the climate to say what will happen. And this is a problem.

You may have found one line of measurement in your satellite data that bucks the recent trend; but what about everything else? The ground-based measurements and ocean measurements do not show a leveling or decline in temperatures globally.

They do. I showed you the HadCRU data set (that's the one which goes back to the 19th century and is split into nothern, southern, and global records).

like the El Nino/La Nina effect and volcanoes are removed?

Again, that's my point. There's always some explanation on how natural phenomenon or phenomena explain this or that evidence which doesn't fit. And certainly, at least some of the time natural cycles do obscure what we would expect. However, again what I find so unsettling is:
1) Even if our explanation for the current lack of observed warming is accurate, we didn't predict it. We didn't know enough about the climate, despite things like the great confidence reported by the IPCC, to predict what would happen.
2) If there's so many ways that natural phenomena can obscure, alter, eradicate, and increase the effect humanity has on the climate, how likely is it that for the one period from ~1975 to ~1998 where we see the warming predicted by AGW theory, not only are there no natural cycles or phenomena which may be responsible for some or most of this observed warming, but our theory requires that the actual warming from co2 itself is increased because it causes other changes in the climate system which further push up temperatures? In other words, for our entire history of direct temperature measurements, there is only one ~30 year period of time when natural forces weren't the dominant climate driver. When it warmed early in the century, it was mostly nature (not enough co2 increase yet). When the co2 continued to increase from 1940 to the 1970s but the temperatures dropped or remained low, natural forces were responsible. When the observed warming trend stopped in ~1998, again natural forces were to blame. From beginning to end, and including the last 10+ years natural phenomena are dominant, except for one ~30 period?

And remember, according to AGW theory, the co2 itself isn't sufficient to cause the ~30 year observed warming trend. That's why our models have that feedback parameter: to explain warming that co2 rises can't explain by themselves. So why, given research which has proposed alternative natural reasons for the additional rise which don't require such a positive feedback paramter (or any), are we so sure that natural forces weren't at play here as well?

if there is a sharp division with most of the experts on one side, and a few contrarians on the other, I say the contrarians have the greatest burden of proof,

There isn't any disagreement as to what the records show. The don't show the warming trend. What the "most of the experts" think is that the warming trend didn't stop, we just aren't seeing it because it is obscured by natural forces.

but the denier/skeptics are the ones with most of the money and resources on their side

They aren't. Not at all. Someone posted something here about ExxonMobile funding various "deniers" and their organizations. I happen to be lucky enough to have access to databases like lexisNexis which analyze companies. So I took a look at one of the claims, namely that some denier organization had received almost a total of $100,000 over several years from ExxonMobile. They probably did. But I stopped looking because I found (suprisingly) this total amount was dwarfed every year by the amount of money given to universities who back AGW theory or to environmental organizations. And that's what ExxonMobile's giving out. What do you think NASA's budget is? Or the MET office?

And as for resources, who do you think owns the satellites? Determines who does or doesn't comprise groups like the IPCC? Determines which papers get published or which papers are included in IPCC reports? The "deniers" may have all sorts of propaganda machines and think tanks, but they aren't the only ones. And most importantly, even if ExxonMobile gave, say, the Pielke's several billions to buy run studies, these studies don't mean anything if they aren't published by the right journals.

this shows that we have to do more than say that temperature increases in our zone will be balanced out by lower temps elsewhere

I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is that even in the north, when it somes to sea-surface temperatures we simply don't have good data until very recently. That's the issue I was referring to with spatial resolution. The satellites measure are the only instruments capable of non-local readings. Boats, land stations, etc., all measure the temperature around the instrument. To get a picture of what the temperature is in the northern hemisphere, all of these readings have to be "averaged." The problem is that they are not even close to being uniformly distributed. And when it comes to the ocean temperatures, before ARGO are data was very, very sparse.

Our land data has been much more complete for much longer, but unfortunately land changes (urban growth, farming, etc.) bias the record. The data sets adjust for this, of course, there is an ongoing debate over whether or not they are adjusted enough. The research which criticizes the amount of adjustment finds that the research behind the adjustment amount underestimated the impact that changes to the surface other than cities have on the surface records, and thus a lot of the warming that has nothing to do with the climate.

as the ice disappears.

Did you read that article I posted on the history of melting around greenland?

If there is an anomaly here (there may be other explanations for ground retaining more heat) how does that in itself undo every other finding on climate change?

It doesn't.

 

[shawn001]

What ExxonMobile did in Valdez was I believe criminal.

January 3, 2007
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
WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3–A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.

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


Source watch.


In 2009, Exxon Mobil spent $27.5 million in lobbying against global warming, which is their second highest year on the books after 2008 election year. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon_Mobil#cite_note-17

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Exxon_Mobil

Then they said they would stop funding and then continued too.

"this total amount was dwarfed every year by the amount of money given to universities who back AGW theory or to environmental organizations. And that's what ExxonMobile's giving out. What do you think NASA's budget is? Or the MET office? "

Where are the statistics to this comment?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Where are the statistics to this comment?

NASA's budget is public record. Just search from budget estimates for particular years. Here, for example, is the estimate for 2012. Tables are given in millions of dollars. So, for example, if you look at page 2 you can see that their earth sciences budget for 2010 was almost 2 billion (1,801.8 millions of dolllars).

If you go to their climate webpage (as you've done so often), and look at what NASA says about their role in climate science here: Climate Change: NASA's Role

they claim from 2007 onwards a budget of 1.2-1.4 billion dollars a year just for earth observations. That's just NASA.

ExxonMobile is a publicly traded company. So while their records are easier to find with certain databases one has to pay for (e.g.,MergentOnline or General Business File ASAP, which I have access to), there's still the SEC. And even for their private foundations, there's the IRS and other public sources (e.g., guidestar.org). For example, the post I referred to was about the ExxonMobil Foundation giving almost $100,000 over several years to a "denier" group. But one can get the information on this foundation from the foundation statements on their site, from the IRS or guidestart (they must file 990 forms).

So that 27.5 million figure? That's nothing. Just the ExxonMobil Foundation alone gave almost $80 million in grants in 2010. If you look at as the SEC filings for 2009, where you state they give $27.5 million to lobbyists, you can see the the total financial annual data in their 10-K statements filed with the SEC as required. So, for example, for 2009, you can see what they filed by going to the SEC.gov website. On environmental expenditures: "Throughout ExxonMobil’s businesses, new and ongoing measures are taken to prevent and minimize the impact of our operations on air, water and ground. These include a significant investment in refining infrastructure and technology to manufacture clean fuels as well as projects to monitor and reduce nitrogen oxide, sulfur oxide and greenhouse gas emissions and expenditures for asset retirement obligations. ExxonMobil’s 2009 worldwide environmental expenditures for all such preventative and remediation steps, including ExxonMobil’s share of equity company expenditures, were about $5.1 billion. The total cost for such activities is expected to remain in this range in 2010 and 2011 (with capital expenditures approximately 45 percent of the total)."

 

[shawn001]

"earth sciences budget for 2010 was almost 2 billion"

How much of that goes to the study of global warming specifically? Earth sciences for Nasa incorporates a lot of different sciences in many different areas, not just global warming.

Exxon mobile makes 6 billion a quarter and rising. Yes, I believe you when you say they are environmentally concious. :areyoucra

This is a new study released from Nasa Giss today, although have not seen the actual study and details yet.

2011 Was Ninth Warmest Year in Decades, NASA Finds

2011 Was Ninth Warmest Year in Decades, NASA Finds | Global Warming & Average Global Surface Temperatures | Goddard Institute for Space Studies | Earth Energy Budget, Solar Activity & El Nino | LiveScience

 

[shawn001]

Not to mention US taxpayers also subsidize the oil companies while making record profits.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

"earth sciences budget for 2010 was almost 2 billion"

How much of that goes to the study of global warming specifically? Earth sciences for Nasa incorporates a lot of different sciences in many different areas, not just global warming.

The NASA website itself, on the page in which they describe their role in climate science, state:
"Fast forward to 2007, and NASA had 17 space missions collecting climate data. In recent years its Earth science budget has ranged from $1.2 to $1.4 billion per year. Today, it runs programs to obtain and convert data from Defense Department and NOAA satellites as well as from certain European, Japanese and Russian satellites. NASA also sponsors field experiments to provide "ground truth" data to check space instrument performance and to develop new measurement techniques."

Earth science isn't even the only source of income NASA has for climate research. And again, that's just NASA. How many labs, organizations,etc., do you think are doing research on climate change? Where do they get their money? You want to talk about ExxonMobile paying huge sums to back "deniers" then point to the "denier" research published. Of course, there you have a problem. Because the people who run these journals are AGW proponents. ExxonMobile could give billions to researchers, but if they don't publish their results in a reputable journal, they might as well put in in a blog.

Exxon mobile makes 6 billion a quarter and rising. Yes, I believe you when you say they are environmentally concious. :areyoucra

I didn't say that. And as for the 6 billion, it's a publicly traded company. How much actual spending power do they have? For example (from Mergent Online):
Key Financials

(In USD as of 09/30/2011)


Income Statement
Revenue 470,006m
Net Income 40,910m
EPS from Continuing Operations 8.30
EPS - Net Income - Dilute 8.30
Revenue per Share 97.13
Balance SheetTotal Assets 323,227m
Total Liabilities 167,288m
Shareholders' Equity 155,939m
Total Assets per Share 67.44
Net Assets per Share 32.53
Cash Flows
Cash from Operations 57,649m
Cash from Investing-27,233m
Cash from Financing-31,641m
Capital Expenditures 30,011m
Cash Flow per Share11.90


How much of their equity belongs to shareholders? And of the billions they make in income, even net income, how much do they spend funding "denier groups"? You stated they spent 16 million. You like wiki pages right? Look up the National Math and Science Initiative. It's an initiative designed in response to groups like the National Academy of Sciences which which published a report showing a decline in math and science skills among U.S. students. Guess who gave them $125 million in 2007? ExxonMobil. Let's see...$16 million to skeptics, $125 million in one year to a non-profit educational organization for U.S. students..

I'm not saying ExxonMobil is a bunch of saints or that they care about the environment at all. What I'm saying is that these claims about "all skeptics are funded by big oil" are nonsense. EVERYBODY NEEDS FUNDING! And guess who has the most? Not "deniers." Guys like Hansen.

This is a new study released from Nasa Giss today, although have not seen the actual study and details yet.

Do you know what the difference between a report and a study is? More importantly, do you know what a "trend" is? If the past decade was the warmest on record, this doesn't make it a trend. It's only a trend if on average each year was warmer than the last. Only it wasn't. And as NASA is using surface data because there satellite data is put together elsewhere, they are relying on the most biased set available barring proxy data.

 

[shawn001]

"Do you know what the difference between a report and a study is?"

What did I say about this above as it was released yesterday?

Definition of TREND

intransitive verb
1
a : to extend in a general direction : follow a general course <mountain ranges trending north and south> b : to veer in a new direction : bend <a coastline that trends westward>

2
a : to show a tendency : incline <prices trending upward>

Trend - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

You don't have to have each year hotter then the next to have a long term trend.

"I'm not saying ExxonMobil is a bunch of saints or that they care about the environment at all. What I'm saying is that these claims about "all skeptics are funded by big oil" are nonsense. EVERYBODY NEEDS FUNDING! And guess who has the most? Not "deniers." Guys like Hansen. "

Nasa or Hansen, does not have more money then exxon mobile to spend on research.

Did the Tobacco companies run a campaign to confuse and cast doubt on the science of cigerette smoking for years?



What "goal" did exxon mobile have in these fundings with certain scientists on global warming?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What did I say about this above as it was released yesterday?

You said "a new study." A report is not a study.

Nasa or Hansen, does not have more money then exxon mobile to spend on research.

Yet, according to you:

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

Let's assume that's true. This figure, according to your source, is the total money they spent to fund skeptic groups from 1998-2005 (so 7 years). Now compare to NASA'a budget information: NASA - Budget Documents, Strategic Plans and Performance Reports

Let's compare that 7 year figure to a single year for NASA. As your other number (the amount you say they spent on lobbyists) concerns 2009, we'll go with that year. To see the "actual" budget for 2009, you have to go to the 2011 budget estimate.

Before we even get to the kind of money the government is throwing at them for climate research, guess how much NASA alone spent in 2009 on "Global Climate Change Information" education? 10 million. And that's only on college students. Their total education budget (how much they spent educating teachers, college students, K-12, etc., was 169.2 million in 2009. It's hard to say, of course, how much of the non-college student education concerned climate change, but NASA educates teachers and k-12 on the subject.

Now onto the 2009 budgets for a few projects directly related to climate research NASA:

Landsat: Their Landsat budget (satellite measurements which, according to NASA, directly serve NASA research in the focus areas of climate, carbon cycle, ecosystems, water cycle, biogeochemistry, and Earth surface/interior) was 200.9 million.

NPP prep: For the National Polar-Orbiting partnership, what would be (and is now) another monitering project to study atmosphere, ice, clouds, etc., NASA's budget in 2009 was 42.2 million.

ICE-sat: for yet another satellite project designed to obtain cloud and ice data, NASAs 2009 budget was 38.8 million.

Glory Mission: for the Glory satellite, designed to investigate aerosols and solar irradiance, NASA's 2009 budget was 61 million.

That's all just earth sciences, and it isn't even all of it.

So let's say that your figure is true: 16 million over 7 years. The TOTAL amount of money you claim exxon mobile gave to "deniers" is NOTHING compared to what NASA alone spent on any given climate project in ONE year. In fact, the amount of money they spent educating college students about climate change in 2009 alone is almost 2/3s of the 16 million you say Exxon Mobile used to fund "denier research" over 7 years.

So the "deniers" have the resources and money? Really?

 

[shawn001]

You said "a new study." A report is not a study.



Yet, according to you:


Let's assume that's true. This figure, according to your source, is the total money they spent to fund skeptic groups from 1998-2005 (so 7 years). Now compare to NASA'a budget information: NASA - Budget Documents, Strategic Plans and Performance Reports

Let's compare that 7 year figure to a single year for NASA. As your other number (the amount you say they spent on lobbyists) concerns 2009, we'll go with that year. To see the "actual" budget for 2009, you have to go to the 2011 budget estimate.

Before we even get to the kind of money the government is throwing at them for climate research, guess how much NASA alone spent in 2009 on "Global Climate Change Information" education? 10 million. And that's only on college students. Their total education budget (how much they spent educating teachers, college students, K-12, etc., was 169.2 million in 2009. It's hard to say, of course, how much of the non-college student education concerned climate change, but NASA educates teachers and k-12 on the subject.

Now onto the 2009 budgets for a few projects directly related to climate research NASA:

Landsat: Their Landsat budget (satellite measurements which, according to NASA, directly serve NASA research in the focus areas of climate, carbon cycle, ecosystems, water cycle, biogeochemistry, and Earth surface/interior) was 200.9 million.

NPP prep: For the National Polar-Orbiting partnership, what would be (and is now) another monitering project to study atmosphere, ice, clouds, etc., NASA's budget in 2009 was 42.2 million.

ICE-sat: for yet another satellite project designed to obtain cloud and ice data, NASAs 2009 budget was 38.8 million.

Glory Mission: for the Glory satellite, designed to investigate aerosols and solar irradiance, NASA's 2009 budget was 61 million.

That's all just earth sciences, and it isn't even all of it.

So let's say that your figure is true: 16 million over 7 years. The TOTAL amount of money you claim exxon mobile gave to "deniers" is NOTHING compared to what NASA alone spent on any given climate project in ONE year. In fact, the amount of money they spent educating college students about climate change in 2009 alone is almost 2/3s of the 16 million you say Exxon Mobile used to fund "denier research" over 7 years.

So the "deniers" have the resources and money? Really?

"This is a new study released from Nasa Giss today, although have not seen the actual study and details yet."


"Landsat: Their Landsat budget (satellite measurements which, according to NASA, directly serve NASA research in the focus areas of climate, carbon cycle, ecosystems, water cycle, biogeochemistry, and Earth surface/interior) was 200.9 million."

"The Landsat Program is a series of Earth-observing satellite missions jointly managed by NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey. Since 1972, Landsat satellites have collected information about Earth from space. This science, known as remote sensing, has matured with the Landsat Program.
Landsat satellites have taken specialized digital photographs of Earth’s continents and surrounding coastal regions for over three decades, enabling people to study many aspects of our planet and to evaluate the dynamic changes caused by both natural processes and human practices."

They also monitore fires, hurricanes, bad weather, volcanoes, deforestation, water, farming and are extremly important in disaters and emergency management.



The money Nasa spends is well spent on all areas of the earth sciences and on space. Its also their job. It also saves lives.

Nasa's entire budget has dropped dramatically. Its something like 1/2 of 1% 0r 0.53% the total US budget. Which is a disgrace in itself.


You have to spend more money for real science and running satellites and weather stations then exxon mobile has to in order cast doubt on climate change, so they can keep up the denial. Not to mention the history of Exxon saying they would stop doing it and then went on to continue to do it more after they said they would stop.


So the "deniers" have the resources and money? Really?

The gas and oil giants and others in related businesses have WAY more money to use when they want too on what SPECIFICS they want to go after. They also don't need to spend as much to accomplish putting doubt in the public's minds.

I personally think you would do great working for the oil companies in this field. :beach:

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

"This is a new study released from Nasa Giss today, although have not seen the actual study and details yet."

You called it a "study." Your link says "report." Are you aware there is a difference?

The money Nasa spends is well spent on all areas of the earth sciences and on space. Its also their job. It also saves lives.

Fantastic, and completely irrelevant. You stated that over 7 years, "big oil" gave a whopping 16 million dollars to skeptics. NASA spends more money in a single year educating teachers and students about climate science than that entire figure.

Nasa's entire budget has dropped dramatically. Its something like 1/2 of 1% 0r 0.53% the total US budget.

DROPPED? REALLY? What's your source? As for "total budget" that's EVERYTHING THAT THE GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR.

Which is a disgrace in itself.

No, it's just irrelevant.

You have to spend more money for real science and running satellites and weather stations

NASA spent 10 million in 1 year teaching college students about climate. No research. No studies. No satellites.

then exxon mobile has to in order cast doubt on climate change

Make up your mind. Either Exxon Mobile is trying to fund studies for climate deniers, in which case they contributed (according to you) a pitiful amount of money, or it's just for propoganda, which doesn't require funding science at all. After all, making sure a particular view is taught in, say, college, doesn't require any studies. That's why NASA spent 10 million dollars in on year to do this.

Not to mention the history of Exxon saying they would stop doing it and then went on to continue to do it more after they said they would stop.

Again, let's just assume this is true. They're funding skeptics with tiny amounts of money compared to the funds available for AGW proponents. So once these "big oil" studies are completed, where do they get published? The Journal of Big Oil Funded Research? Who controls what get's published?

The gas and oil giants and others in related businesses have WAY more money to use when they want too on what SPECIFICS they want to go after.

I'm using the figure you quoted. 16 million over 7 years. NASA spends more in a year educuting teachers and students about their view of climate science. As for the budget they have when it comes to climate research, 16 million wouldn't cover the cost of any single research project for ONE year, let alone 7.

They also don't need to spend as much to accomplish putting doubt in the public's minds.

That's true. Of course, neither do the AGW proponents. After all, as you have so aptly demonstrated, one can form an opinion and stick to it with blind faith, ignore science, and quote mine websites for confirmation without reading a single study.

 

[work in progress]

There are many explanations for why this or that trend doesn't quite match the theory or doesn't match it at all. They may all be right. That's not quite what I find unsettling. Let me go back to an example I used earlier: issues in the satellite data. As I mentioned in my last post, satellites (despite being the best instruments for temperature data sets), can suffer from mechanical failure or mechanical issues like any other instrument. When the satellite record was first published (1990 I believe), it showed a LOT less warming than expected. Then another cimate scientist (Trenberth, although he may just have been lead author) pointed out that there may be a calibration problem which accounted for this. So Spencer & Christy went back, did more testing and research looking for this problem. They found it, and adjusted the data set accordingly (i.e., raising the temperatures). No problem, all the data sets are adjusted, and as this was a brand new thing, it was pretty much a sure thing that there would be issues. Then when RSS came along, they realized that the satellites were not a stable as assumed. So both they and Christy & Spencer starting keeping track of the orbits so that they could continually adjust the temperatures accordingly. Again, it's the kind of thing that happens.

I was getting a little weary of this debate, largely because the same points keep getting retreaded, and the same questions go unanswered. My big questions:
1. Why keep pushing the same satellite data that may not even be giving pertinent information in the first place? You keep dismissing Argo ocean monitoring data as being too recent to provide accurate trends. But, if there is warming, the bulk of the warming starts first in the world's oceans, where most incoming energy is absorbed. By the time the effects are felt by us...especially in southern latitudes, there can be decades of warming already in the pipeline, waiting to make their effects known.
2. What about ocean acidification from rising atmospheric carbon absorption? Shawn added some more data on the subject while I was away, and even though there is a plenty of early evidence that rising acidification is playing a major part in declining levels of ocean algae and plankton, along with fish stocks, I don't see any of these guys like Spencer and Christy address this issue. And that is a big problem, considering that our understanding of how the ocean ecosystems work is still so poorly understood. The strategy of the climate skeptic or denier, seems to be an attitude of maintain the status quo unless there is incontrovertible evidence that disaster is approaching.

To me, this stems from an attitude founded in the three religions that dominate the world today and sprung from the Middle East, that the world is inert and disorganized until we make something useful from its products. We are separate and above the world (second only to the creator of the world), and the creator gives us free reign to exploit what we can from the world in whatever manner we like! This kind of thinking may have worked fine in early times when there were few of us and our technology was limited; but today there are multiple lines of evidence that the human race is already over-exploiting the biosphere, and has to make radical reductions in carbon output, as well as our impact on the biosphere -- such as in agriculture: Farming Claims Almost Half Earth's Land, New Maps Show The more land we use, the less is available for the natural biodiversity needed to support life and even regulate temperatures and atmospheric greenhouse gas levels. Some of the deniers commenting on past spikes in temperatures use the obvious fact that natural negative sequestration of carbon returned the planet to normal conditions after a few thousand....or million years, without acknowledging the fact that the Earth was a much different place before we arrived. Our agriculture is one of the big causes of increased carbon, and land used for agriculture is land that has had forests cleared and rivers diverted to reduce the capacity of a natural biosphere to return things to a more optimal level. We are heating up the planet at the same time as we are cutting the wires to the systems that are needed to control and reduce the impacts of a sudden rise in greenhouse gas levels.

It's a shame that the primary world religions and the philosophical systems they inspired, came along before the modern scientific understanding of how the world really works. If it did, there would have been a lot more concern and attention given to the impacts of human activity.

What is unusual, however, is that all these adjustments went one way. They always increased the temperatures. I would think that, prima facie, this strike anyone who works with complicated equipment as strange. Instruments do fail, and the do malfunction. But for them to do so in ways that constantly cause a systematic error in one direction is not normal.

Similarly, the entire warming trend that is attributed almost completely to humans is a ~30 year period in the later half of the 20th century. Every other trend has natural explanations. The same has been done to explain some, much, or most of the observed warming attributed to humans. Yet 1) these are quickly dismissed and 2) most researchers aren't even looking.

It doesn't matter if it is, anymore than that 1998 is second (or first or third, it's rather hard to tell). The issue is the trend. Our models (and the majority of climate scientist) predicted that temperatures would continue to rise. They kept predicting this, from Hansen's 1988 announcement onward, and became more sure as the models became more complex and more research was conducted. Then the observed warming trend stopped. After about half a decade or so without the observed warming trend predicted, this couldn't be ignored. So climate scientists went to work trying to figure out why none of the temperature records were showing the warming that they ought to, according to the models. And sure enough, outcomes research like Hansen (2010) finding that the warming is "hidden" by natural fluctuations in the climate. So the warming trend didn't really stop, we just aren't seeing it because natural climate activity is obscuring it.

Ok, let's say that's the case. Again, my biggest problem is that this was explained after the fact. The whole point of our models, our research, the IPCC, all of it, is to show us what will happen. It's about prediction. We're concerned about the dangers/catastrophes to come because according to our models they will. Yet so far, we keep explaining things after the fact. If we have to do this for the current trend then it means we don't know enough about the climate to say what will happen. And this is a problem.

Apparently, the predictions in the IPCC reports are always set up using models of linear growth. As the rate of CO2 rises at an increasing rate...as does sea level rise....and melting sea ice in the Arctic, there should be some consideration that long feared positive feedback effects are already in place, and new tipping points for rapid warming are already in motion. But none of this will appear in an IPCC report! NASA: Earth Is Losing Half A Trillion Tons Of Ice A Year
Worth asking if this is why Congress wants NASA and especially NOAA's budgets' cut? And what am I to take from the data, and the interpretations of data you keep posting, which not only is at odds with what the majority show, but flies in the face of the bleeding obvious! Like a couple of your reports and climate models claiming that Arctic sea ice and Greenland melt are just following cyclical patterns....at a time when the world's major shipping companies are already setting up their pilot projects and drafting plans for sea routes through an Arctic Ocean that hasn't had open water in thousands of years......time to go!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I was getting a little weary of this debate, largely because the same points keep getting retreaded, and the same questions go unanswered. My big questions:
1. Why keep pushing the same satellite data that may not even be giving pertinent information in the first place? You keep dismissing Argo ocean monitoring data as being too recent to provide accurate trends. But, if there is warming, the bulk of the warming starts first in the world's oceans, where most incoming energy is absorbed. By the time the effects are felt by us...especially in southern latitudes, there can be decades of warming already in the pipeline, waiting to make their effects known.

First, I'm not entirely "dismissing" the ocean data, as these data sets are part of global surface sets used by groups like HadCRU to build our current surface set record (such as that graph I provided which includes the most recent surface data, and which shows the northern, southern, and global surface record).

But there is a good reason (apart from sparsity of data) why it is problematic to use ocean temperatures to say anything about the effect of GHGs. For example, Compo & Sardeshmukh published in article in the journal Climate Dynamics in 2009. The main point of the article (I can provide you it in full if you wish) was that the warming we see in the surface records is due to ocean cycles. However, in their conclusion, the authors state: "Although not a focus of this study, the degree to which the oceans themselves have recently warmded due to increased GHG, other anthropogenic, natural solar and volcanic forcings, or internal multi-decadal climate variations is a matter of active investigation (Stott et al. 2006; Knutson et al. 2006; Pierce et al. 2006). Reliable assessments of these contributing factors depend critically on reliable estimations of natural climate variability, either from the observational record or from coupled climate model simulations without anthropogenic forcings. Several recent studies suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales..."

Basically, the reason ocean data (even if we had more consistent, reliable measurements) is problematic is because it doesn't reflect annual changes but rather effects on timescales ranging from decadal to millenial. So while in principle, if we can accurately rule out biases from land records, non-satellite upper air records, and satellite records, we can obtain a picture of how the global and hemispherical temperatures are changing on a yearly basis, we can't with ocean readings. The atmosphere changes quickly, while the ocean does not. Nor does it change in a steady, uniform, linear fashion. The complexities of redistribution and retention from heat and the cycles involved do not lend themselves to easy understanding of ocean temperature even over a several decade trend.

Secondly, the reason for concentrating on satellite data is AGW theory itself (and by that I mean AGW theory as represented by, say, Hansen, Jones, the IPCC, NASA, and other mainstream organizations/scientists). The theory predicts where we should see the most warming: the lower troposphere. It's essential to the entirety of the theory, which basically states that an increase in GHGs from humans traps heat in the lower troposphere, which then sort of "trickles down" to the land and oceans. So if the troposphere is not warming faster or more than the surface, we have a major problem with our theory.

2. What about ocean acidification from rising atmospheric carbon absorption? Shawn added some more data on the subject while I was away, and even though there is a plenty of early evidence that rising acidification is playing a major part in declining levels of ocean algae and plankton, along with fish stocks, I don't see any of these guys like Spencer and Christy address this issue.

I'm not sure what "guys like Spencer and Christy" means and as their work is on the atmosphere and satellite data, rather than ocea acidification, they don't (at least not in peer-reviewed research. However, there is a good deal of research which contradicts or at least renders less problematic all of the above. Take, for example, Stuart-Smith et al.'s (2010) study published in the journal Global Change Biology. They note that a great deal of the research behind the effects of AGW on warming is from models, not empirical research. Their study is an attempt to see to what extent the models are accurate by looking at biodiversity changes around over 100 sites in four different years (1992, 95, 2006, 07). They found virtually no changes in any type of marine life.

Research of this type suggests that adapativity among aquatic populations to ocean changes can be greater than we think, and therefore the effects of ocean acidification will be much smaller than predicted. Other research, of course, suggests the opposite.

The strategy of the climate skeptic or denier, seems to be an attitude of maintain the status quo unless there is incontrovertible evidence that disaster is approaching.

I don't think this is true, especially given the wide range of views all given the name "denier" and the varied nature of what we should do within them. But again, action/inaction both have consequences. Just about everybody thinks we should do something, and almost nobody agrees what (AGW proponents included).

To me, this stems from an attitude founded in the three religions that dominate the world today and sprung from the Middle East, that the world is inert and disorganized until we make something useful from its products.

Which religions? The Western worldview is very much a product of christianity and centuries of christian dominance. The university system itself evolved out of it. That worldview holds that God made humans the master of animals and that humans are "special" among all of nature. Interestingly enough, that's the kind of thinking adopted not only by mainstream scientists involved in environmental research, but environmentalism itself. Humanity is seen as somehow seperate from nature, in that our effects our "unnatural." Moreover, it is our responsibility to care not just about our own species but about all kinds of life (which is pretty Old Testament book of Genesis type thinkining). Finally, humans are seen as more powerful than nature, capable of changing all of the world as no other thing can. That's a very anthropocentric type of thinking which may even be a product of the influence of christianity. Either way, the idea that humans should care about species extinctions even if they don't affect us, or the tendency to think we are far more influential than we are, seems very much in line with christian thinking.

Apparently, the predictions in the IPCC reports are always set up using models of linear growth.

The models rely on incredibly complex nonlinear differential equations. They aren't linear.

As the rate of CO2 rises at an increasing rate...as does sea level rise....and melting sea ice in the Arctic, there should be some consideration that long feared positive feedback effects are already in place, and new tipping points for rapid warming are already in motion. But none of this will appear in an IPCC report!

The IPCC reports are reflections of the state of climate science. No research is done. Obviously, they can't cite every single study, so the main job of the ipcc is supposed to be to summarize what most of the research indicates and report this. What "won't appear in an IPCC report" is the research which doesn't support the theory.

As for your link, one of the big suprises they found was (according to your link) was that while predictions of ice-loss in the "high asian mountain ranges" have "ranged up to 50 billion tons annually" the study found the number to be 4 billion. So it's an example of IPCC reports vastly overestimating, not understimating.

 

[shawn001]

[/color][/size][/b]

You called it a "study." Your link says "report." Are you aware there is a difference?

What did I actually say

I have not read the actual study yet, that was released the day they mention it, they were reporting they had a new study.



Fantastic, and completely irrelevant. You stated that over 7 years, "big oil" gave a whopping 16 million dollars to skeptics. NASA spends more money in a single year educating teachers and students about climate science than that entire figure.

Climate in general or climate change or both?


DROPPED? REALLY? What's your source? As for "total budget" that's EVERYTHING THAT THE GOVERNMENT PAYS FOR.

Nasa's budget has decreased!


No, it's just irrelevant.

Not at all, perhaps by you.

NASA spent 10 million in 1 year teaching college students about climate. No research. No studies. No satellites.

Good for them, its money well spent.


Make up your mind. Either Exxon Mobile is trying to fund studies for climate deniers, in which case they contributed (according to you) a pitiful amount of money, or it's just for propoganda, which doesn't require funding science at all. After all, making sure a particular view is taught in, say, college, doesn't require any studies. That's why NASA spent 10 million dollars in on year to do this.

Again, let's just assume this is true. They're funding skeptics with tiny amounts of money compared to the funds available for AGW proponents. So once these "big oil" studies are completed, where do they get published? The Journal of Big Oil Funded Research? Who controls what get's published?

The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading U.S. science-based nonprofit organization working for a healthy environment and a safer world. Founded in 1969, UCS is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and also has offices in Berkeley, Chicago and Washington, D.C.

WASHINGTON, DC, Jan. 3–A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists offers the most comprehensive documentation to date of how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. According to the report, ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science.
"ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer," said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Director of Strategy & Policy. "A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years."
Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change details how the oil company, like the tobacco industry in previous decades, has

• raised doubts about even the most indisputable scientific evidence
• funded an array of front organizations to create the appearance of a broad platform for a tight-knit group of vocal climate change contrarians who misrepresent peer-reviewed scientific findings
• attempted to portray its opposition to action as a positive quest for "sound science" rather than business self-interest
• used its access to the Bush administration to block federal policies and shape government communications on global warming

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

I'm using the figure you quoted. 16 million over 7 years. NASA spends more in a year educuting teachers and students about their view of climate science. As for the budget they have when it comes to climate research, 16 million wouldn't cover the cost of any single research project for ONE year, let alone 7.

Big difference between what nasa does and big oil companies.



That's true. Of course, neither do the AGW proponents. After all, as you have so aptly demonstrated, one can form an opinion and stick to it with blind faith, ignore science, and quote mine websites for confirmation without reading a single study.

The above is totally false!

What is the scientific concensus on climate change?

The truth is that the scientific community has reached a consensus on climate change. The buildup of heat-trapping emissions from burning fossil fuels and clearing forests is changing the climate, posing significant risks to our well-being. Reducing emissions and preparing for unavoidable changes would greatly reduce those risks. That is the conclusion of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the world's leading scientific societies, and the overwhelming majority of practicing climate scientists.

Name one national or major scientific institution anywhere in the world that disputes the theory of anthropogenic climate change?

 

[shawn001]

While average global temperature will still fluctuate from year to year, scientists focus on the decadal trend. Nine of the 10 warmest years since 1880 have occurred since the year 2000, as the Earth has experienced sustained higher temperatures than in any decade during the 20th century. As greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, scientists expect the long-term temperature increase to continue as well. (Data source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory, Robert Simmon)

The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.

NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York, which monitors global surface temperatures on an ongoing basis, released an updated analysis that shows temperatures around the globe in 2011 compared to the average global temperature from the mid-20th century. The comparison shows how Earth continues to experience warmer temperatures than several decades ago. The average temperature around the globe in 2011 was 0.92 degrees F (0.51 C) warmer than the mid-20th century baseline.

Doubting Global Warming? NASA: Temperature Data 1880 - 2011

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QnL9y2FhHEk

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The above is totally false!

What is the scientific concensus on climate change?

The truth is that the scientific community has reached a consensus on climate change. The buildup of heat-trapping emissions from burning fossil fuels and clearing forests is changing the climate, posing significant risks to our well-being. Reducing emissions and preparing for unavoidable changes would greatly reduce those risks. That is the conclusion of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the world's leading scientific societies, and the overwhelming majority of practicing climate scientists.

Name one national or major scientific institution anywhere in the world that disputes the theory of anthropogenic climate change?

I have no idea what you mean by "the above is totally false" as you refer to a quoted section which includes things you state. It would help if you learn to use the quote tags to make your posts more readable. "The above" centers on who has the money. I was responding to the claim the "deniers" were some well-oiled propoganda machine using your figures and comparing them to the amount of money spent by a single pro-AGW group, on everything from educating college students to climate studies. Whether or not it is "money well-spent" is completely irrelevant to my point. If the deniers are the one's with all the money, why is it that the figure you give (16 million over 7 years) for "big oil's" contribution is dwarfed by the amount of money NASA spent on making sure people knew what their view on climate change is? The point isn't whether the money was well-spent, but who has it. What are the "denier organizations" (Heartland, the Marshall Institute, etc.) and what is their budget compared to groups like NASA or the MET? And who controls what gets published? That's all I was responding to, and you didn't do a single thing to address it.

As for the "consensus" I have consistently maintained that a the majority of climate scientists support AGW theory. However, science isn't a matter of consensus. It's the state of research. If 99.9% of all climate scientists agreed that the IPCC version of AGW theory is correct, but their predictions continually failed, then it really doesn't matter what they think. What matters is what we know. And when it comes to modeling the climate (as with any system), if you understand it then your models can predict it's behavior. So far, our predictive power is next to nothing. In fact, we continually make the data fit our models, rather than the reverse.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

While average global temperature will still fluctuate from year to year, scientists focus on the decadal trend. Nine of the 10 warmest years since 1880 have occurred since the year 2000, as the Earth has experienced sustained higher temperatures than in any decade during the 20th century. As greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to rise, scientists expect the long-term temperature increase to continue as well. (Data source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Image credit: NASA Earth Observatory, Robert Simmon)





The global average surface temperature in 2011 was the ninth warmest since 1880, according to NASA scientists. The finding continues a trend in which nine of the 10 warmest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000.

Again, TREND. Look at the actual temperature averages for the past decade. Do they consistently RISE? No. That's because there's no observed warming trend. The temperatures just stayed high, but on average? No warming. A warming TREND means that on average each year was warmer than the one before. That's not what we see. Is there an explanation for this? Sure: Hansen (2010) has a whole study on why we don't see the warming trend there. The question again is why did Hansen have to explain this in 2010? We've had climate models much earlier. We had predictions with every IPCC report. So why didn't our models predict that the "warming trend" would be obscured by natural forcing? Because they aren't good enough, that's why.

Oh, and why, I wonder, is the Goddard Institute for Space Studies using surface records rather than their own satellites? It's well known that the surface data is biased not only by the standard instrumental problems (as are all measuring instruments) but also because they measure local temperatures which must be subtly averaged (which is why the global surface data sets differ), and which are biased by surface processes. AGW theory also predicts that we should see greater warming in the lower troposphere. So why isn't NASA and the GISS using data which records lower troposphere temperatures?

 

[work in progress]

First, I'm not entirely "dismissing" the ocean data, as these data sets are part of global surface sets used by groups like HadCRU to build our current surface set record (such as that graph I provided which includes the most recent surface data, and which shows the northern, southern, and global surface record).

But there is a good reason (apart from sparsity of data) why it is problematic to use ocean temperatures to say anything about the effect of GHGs. For example, Compo & Sardeshmukh published in article in the journal Climate Dynamics in 2009. The main point of the article (I can provide you it in full if you wish) was that the warming we see in the surface records is due to ocean cycles. However, in their conclusion, the authors state: "Although not a focus of this study, the degree to which the oceans themselves have recently warmded due to increased GHG, other anthropogenic, natural solar and volcanic forcings, or internal multi-decadal climate variations is a matter of active investigation (Stott et al. 2006; Knutson et al. 2006; Pierce et al. 2006). Reliable assessments of these contributing factors depend critically on reliable estimations of natural climate variability, either from the observational record or from coupled climate model simulations without anthropogenic forcings. Several recent studies suggest that the observed SST variability may be misrepresented in the coupled models used in preparing the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report, with substantial errors on interannual and decadal scales..."

Basically, the reason ocean data (even if we had more consistent, reliable measurements) is problematic is because it doesn't reflect annual changes but rather effects on timescales ranging from decadal to millenial. So while in principle, if we can accurately rule out biases from land records, non-satellite upper air records, and satellite records, we can obtain a picture of how the global and hemispherical temperatures are changing on a yearly basis, we can't with ocean readings. The atmosphere changes quickly, while the ocean does not. Nor does it change in a steady, uniform, linear fashion. The complexities of redistribution and retention from heat and the cycles involved do not lend themselves to easy understanding of ocean temperature even over a several decade trend.

Considering the simple physics of the different properties of gases and liquids, why would you assume that a huge expanse of liquid like the world's oceans, would be able to show annual variations in temperature in the first place? To me this is a reason to go with what the oceans have to say, rather than atmospheric data.

Regarding a so-called controversy of claimed "missing heat" in climate models, the evidence from the Argo floats is that any missing heat is in the oceans and will make it's effects felt in the atmosphere in the coming decades....heat already in the pipeline, as they call it:

Search For 'Missing Heat' Confirms More Global Warming 'In The Pipeline'

Posted on 19 February 2012 by Rob Painting

Loeb (2012) takes an updated look at the issue and finds that, using observations rather than modeled estimates, the Earth's energy imbalance is consistent with heat building up with the Earth system. They have this imbalance at 0.5 (±0.43) W/m2, much smaller than previous estimates, but the error margins are huge. Not unexpectedly the authors confirmed that heat is continuing to build up in the sub-surface ocean, which agrees with other recent studies on ocean heat. The persistent energy imbalance measured by this study is essentially future global warming, or "warming in the pipeline". It puts paid to wishful thinking-based claims that global warming has halted.

An exercise in accounting

Earth's energy budget is determined by measuring how much energy comes into the Earth system from the sun, how much is lost to space as heat, and accounting for the remainder on Earth. Very little of this Earthbound energy goes into warming the atmosphere and land because they have a limited capacity to store heat. Likewise the energy required to melt ice is comparatively small.
The oceans, however, cover over 70% of the Earth's surface, are dark-coloured (meaning they absorb sunlight readily) and, due to their enormous heat capacity compared to that of the atmosphere and land, store over 90% of the excess energy from global warming. Quite obviously then, accurate measurements of ocean warming are crucial to balancing Earth's energy budget.................


And perhaps most crucially of all, the persistent energy imbalance at the top-of-the-atmosphere (TOA) is representative of future global warming, or warming "in the pipeline." The Earth will continue to warm until the balance at TOA is restored.



​

So, I don't know where the studies you post...like the one above, derive their conclusions that there is nothing to worry about...it's just natural cyclical variations. I am not qualified to do much evaluation of scientific research studies, other than to demand that they fit together and provide the capability of producing a complete climate theory that can explain recent climate trends, disappearing Arctic sea ice, and rising CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels, and demonstrate how everything can, even theoretically, just go back to normal in the coming decades.

 

[work in progress]

Secondly, the reason for concentrating on satellite data is AGW theory itself (and by that I mean AGW theory as represented by, say, Hansen, Jones, the IPCC, NASA, and other mainstream organizations/scientists). The theory predicts where we should see the most warming: the lower troposphere. It's essential to the entirety of the theory, which basically states that an increase in GHGs from humans traps heat in the lower troposphere, which then sort of "trickles down" to the land and oceans. So if the troposphere is not warming faster or more than the surface, we have a major problem with our theory.

And like the new information coming in from ocean research shows, a lot of discrepancies in modelling represent that time lag between ocean heating affects the atmosphere.

When it comes to modelling, I would say that any model -- no matter how well its internal logic works, is of less value than real, physical evidence. I'm reminded that Zeno's paradoxes of motion weren't solved until Isaac Newton developed his Laws of Motion; but in the intervening centuries, people still moved about disregarding Zeno, because the evidence from the real world led most rational people to assume that there must be a flaw in his logic or understanding of the world, rather than movement.

I'm not sure what "guys like Spencer and Christy" means and as their work is on the atmosphere and satellite data, rather than ocea acidification, they don't (at least not in peer-reviewed research.

Just musings I suppose. I've read some of what these guys have to say on unrelated subjects like economics and religion, and have to wonder if there insistence on swimming against the current of what their colleagues conclude from the evidence, is molded by a deep-seated rejection of any ideas that might threaten either libertarian economics or fundamentalist Christian interpretation of our relationship with the world and nature.

I read a report on a psychology study last year that discovered a key difference between the basic categories of liberals and conservatives. Liberals, who tend to be more flexible and adaptable regarding changing beliefs, are more likely to agree with the scientific consensus on topics ranging from global warming to evolution, when they are better educated or learn more about the subject. The research discovered a strange paradox in conservatives however: the conservative is more likely to agree with science when they are less informed, and less likely to agree and hold to alternative theories if they have higher education. It's been noted for some time now that humans are not completely rational creatures, and finding truth is more than evaluating evidence -- it also depends highly on whether we have strong emotional attachments to certain belief systems.

The reason why academia is predominantly liberal, is not some sort of liberal conspiracy to take over universities...as the conservative conspiracy theorists want to believe...it's more a matter of having the mental flexibility to follow and stay on the trail of evidence and be willing to abandon a wrong trail of evidence, is more difficult for a conservative to do than a liberal. So, in this example, the conservative climatologist is likely a dead-ender, who will keep holding on to bad theories, rather than abandon them for something more plausible.

Research of this type suggests that adapativity among aquatic populations to ocean changes can be greater than we think, and therefore the effects of ocean acidification will be much smaller than predicted. Other research, of course, suggests the opposite.

That is an extremely dangerous assumption to draw, based on all of the coral bleaching, extinctions of shellfish in many zones, and the general decline in fish stocks all around the world. The main problem may be overfishing, but with the new studies showing how a more acidic ocean is messing up fish sonar, ocean acidification looks like the first shoe to drop in a general mass extinction that will wipe out many land species in the coming decades.

I also have to note that, from one of the few complacent reports I was presented a year ago, the researcher made use of data that fish were changing location to adapt to rising temperatures and water density, to tell us that they'll do fine. That was just totally assinine, considering that a lot of the ocean life, like fish living in shallower waters, will not be able to relocate.

Which religions? The Western worldview is very much a product of christianity and centuries of christian dominance. The university system itself evolved out of it. That worldview holds that God made humans the master of animals and that humans are "special" among all of nature. Interestingly enough, that's the kind of thinking adopted not only by mainstream scientists involved in environmental research, but environmentalism itself. Humanity is seen as somehow seperate from nature, in that our effects our "unnatural." Moreover, it is our responsibility to care not just about our own species but about all kinds of life (which is pretty Old Testament book of Genesis type thinkining). Finally, humans are seen as more powerful than nature, capable of changing all of the world as no other thing can. That's a very anthropocentric type of thinking which may even be a product of the influence of christianity. Either way, the idea that humans should care about species extinctions even if they don't affect us, or the tendency to think we are far more influential than we are, seems very much in line with christian thinking.

I have to point out that we have no way of knowing if a species extinction will affect us. And my point was that the JudeoChristian separation of man and nature permeates secular thought as well. The eastern religions, that mostly stayed with the pantheist perspective on nature of hunter/gatherer cultures, have their own examples of environmental degradation to deal with in the modern age....but at least they feel bad about it! I remember that back in the 60's and 70's, when Japan was rapidly industrializing, and fouling its air and water, there was a general sense of discomfort in the population that served as a stronger motivation to find a way to prosper without destroying the environment. A lot of this came from the Shinto/Buddhist cultural attitude of nature, and they were willing to spend a lot more than western nations were on cleaning up the environment than the U.S. or Europe. A difficult and expensive job, considering how densely populated the Islands of Japan are.