Global Warming Question

[Oberon]

Your dishonesty (sorry, I mean "exaggerating for rhetorical effect", as you call it) says all I need to know about your tactics and sources, thanks.

Translation: I don't want to check your satallite data because I know it is accurate.


I listed all of my sources from which I quoted. They are all peer-reviewed journals. I even made I did not include articles from journals dominated by skeptics. All of my quotes are from real, actual, scientific journals, and the peer-reviewed articles back my position. If you want to check the satallite data, check them out for yourself. The journals as well.

 

[Alceste]

Translation: I don't want to check your satallite data because I know it is accurate.

Translation: Now that Alceste has spent over 20 pages doing extensive research debunking my specious reasoning and casting doubt on the credibility of my sources, caught me red-handed in the middle of a lie and concluded my posts are not worth further consideration on account of the fact I am sloppy and dishonest, it's the perfect time to accuse her of intellectual laziness.

 

[Oberon]

Translation: Now that Alceste has spent over 20 pages doing extensive research debunking my specious reasoning and casting doubt on the credibility of my sources, caught me red-handed in the middle of a lie and concluded my posts are not worth further consideration on account of the fact I am sloppy and dishonest, it's the perfect time to accuse her of intellectual laziness.

No, I accused you of fraud LONG before this. My graphs ARE taken from the satellite temperature data. Furthermore, in our first disagreement about ddt, even themadhair admitted that your source was completely inaccurate. Also, I have carefully listed all my sources for the quotations, which show (far more than the two temp. graphs) that the MWP and previous temperatures were higher than today according to modern reconstructions (and even those reconstructions which show less warming have now rejected the hockey stick graph which made the current warming look very unusual, including the author of that study). The graphs are merely icing on the cake.

You have yet to cite any peer-reviewed studies or any articles from reputable
journals.

You sources have been whatever websites you can find

You claim to discredit reputable scientists, even those used by the IPCC, based off whatever you read on the internet.

You misrepresent the authors of the survey I cited, and have yet to back down.

You never even backed down from the wiki article on DDT, despite the fact that the sources CLEARLY contradicted the wiki article

All you have is rhetoric and websites, not science.

I have backed my claims with science, experts, and peer-reviewed journals.

Anyone isn't as biased as you are will be able to see that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Alceste]

Lol, whatever, buddy. Why do I need my own sources when I can rip you to pieces using yours?

 

[Oberon]

Lol, whatever, buddy. Why do I need my own sources when I can rip you to pieces using yours?

Then do so.

So far, all you have done is


1. "discredit" one source for actions in the 90s, when your source (the IPCC) relied on him as a lead author in 2001
2. Used whatever online sites you can find to back your point, rather than any peer-reviewed articles or scientific journals.

Basically, all you have is what google brings you. You continue to cite the IPCC 2500 experts, while at the same time "discrediting" the lead authors of those experts, based on websites you find.

So when you come back with actuall science, not rhetoric, let me know.

 

[Alceste]

So when you come back with actuall science, not rhetoric, let me know.

You first.

 

[Oberon]

You first.

Well, let's see...

All of my citations have been from actual scientific journals. You use websistes. My sources have relevant degrees and pass peer-review. You use websites. My temperature data is taken from satellites, and/or NASA. You use websites.

Hmmm....

You should probably wait for a response from themadhair. So far, themadhair is the only one citing science to support opinions.

 

[themadhair]

Let me see now.

You claimed it was warmer centuries ago despite the majority of relevant data disagreeing. The NAS weighed in and came to the same conclusion – that the available data disagrees that it was warmer centuries ago. The IPCC summarised the available data thusly:

So are the IPCC and the NAS accurately reflecting the consensus of the available data or is Oberon completely correct. Hmmm. I can’t quite decide. Oberon or the NAS+IPCC. Tough choice.

Not according to sattelite data:

Really? NASA has the following graph on their website:

Satellite readings have them peaking at the end of the 20th century.

Hmmm. Why does the above graph look very different to yours? NASA lying to us?

I gave you current research showing the MWP was as high or higher than the current trend.

Tough choice. NAS+IPCC or Oberon.

And, of course, now other factors contribute to temperature readings, like the UHI:

Except that this has already been ruled out. From Global temperature change — PNAS :

The conclusion that global warming is a real climate change, not an artifact due to measurements in urban areas, is confirmed by surface temperature change inferred from borehole temperature profiles at remote locations, the rate of retreat of alpine glaciers around the world, and progressively earlier breakup of ice on rivers and lakes (10). The geographical distribution of warming (Fig. 1 B) provides further proof of real climate change. Largest warming is in remote regions including high latitudes. Warming occurs over ocean areas, far from direct human effects, with warming over ocean less than over land, an expected result for a forced climate change because of the ocean's great thermal inertia.

The UHI is the driving force behind global climate change and yet apparently has major effects in non-urbanised areas? Mmmm. Oberon or the NAS+IPCC? Tough choice.

Inspection of the changes in global atmospheric temperature during the last 1,000 years shows that the global temperature dropped about 2◦C over the last millennium.

Ermmm…..no reconstruction you have cited even comes close to this. Doesn’t fly in the face of every source you used attempting to verify WMP was warmer than current temperatures?? One suspects there is something contextually wrong here.

“Reconstructions at both sites indicate that summer temperatures during the last interglacial were higher than at any time in the Holocene, and 5 to 10 °C higher than present. Peak Holocene temperatures occurred in the first half of the period, and have decreased since about the mid-Holocene.”

This is quite likely accurate. Now explain to me why it is relevant to AGW. Unless it isn’t and is simply more chaff from the Oberon school of dance. Climate has varied over the geological history of earth. We know this already. What is being debated is whether humans are influencing current climate change (yes) and what steps we can take to stall that (of which Kyoto is a first step).

 

[Oberon]

Let me see now.

You claimed it was warmer centuries ago despite the majority of relevant data disagreeing.

Relevant data? I notice you ignore all the 21st century studies I referenced that disagree with you. And even those who don't agree that it was warmer, see a comparable temperature.

My points still stand:

1. Some reconstructions posit a warmer climate during the MWP
2. Even more posit a warmer far ealier
3. Those that do not show a warmer MWP now show a comparable warming trend.

In other words, the vast majority of studies who reconstruct the MWP, which took place prior to the period of anthropic based climate change, show a comparable warming trend.

The NAS weighed in and came to the same conclusion – that the available data disagrees that it was warmer centuries ago. The IPCC summarised the available data thusly:

And other studies (cited in my last post) disagree, showing that the issue is far from settled.

So are the IPCC and the NAS accurately reflecting the consensus of the available data or is Oberon completely correct. Hmmm. I can’t quite decide. Oberon or the NAS+IPCC. Tough choice.

Nice strawman, as if this is only my "opinion." I quoted peer-reviewed studies which disagree with the IPCC. Moreove, in previous posts I have shown that lead authors in IPCC studies document a blatant bias. Good try dancing around though.

Really? NASA has the following graph on their website:

Hmmm. Why does the above graph look very different to yours? NASA lying to us?

I know you aren't stupid, so you must be deliberately deceptive here. I said satellite data. The graphs you quote are NOT obtained solely from satellite. Stop manipulating me and the data.

Except that this has already been ruled out. From Global temperature change — PNAS :

You can't seriously be that simple. Your study rules it out. I quote studies which don't. Therefore your sources must be correct? Please.

The relevant point remains that numerous studies show that the UHI is not adequately accounted for in climate reconstrutions. Proxy data often bare this out, and so does data from satellites.

The UHI is the driving force behind global climate change and yet apparently has major effects in non-urbanised areas? Mmmm. Oberon or the NAS+IPCC? Tough choice.

Again with your strawman. I didn't just give my own opinion. I cited research.

Ermmm…..no reconstruction you have cited even comes close to this. Doesn’t fly in the face of every source you used attempting to verify WMP was warmer than current temperatures?? One suspects there is something contextually wrong here.

1. This is one of those sources.
2. If something is "contextually wrong" then check it out for yourself:

Sorokhtin, O. G., et al. “Evolution of the Earth’s Global Climate.” Energy sources, Part A 29 (2007):1-19.

This is quite likely accurate. Now explain to me why it is relevant to AGW.

If the climate has varied in ways comparable to the current warming trend, then this has implications for how much of the current trend is from anthropogenic causes.

During the long geological history of the earth, there was no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2 levels. Earth has been warming and cooling at highly irregular intervals and the amplitudes of temperature change were also irregular. The warming of about 0.3 _C in recent years has prompted suggestions about anthropogenic influence on the earth’s climate due to increasing human activity worldwide. However, a close examination of the earth’s temperature change suggests that the recent warming may be primarily due to urbanization and land-use change impact and not due to increased levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Besides land-use change, solar variability and the sun’s brightness appear to provide a more significant forcing on earth’s climate than previously believed. Recent studies suggest solar influence as a primary driver of the earth’s climate in geological times. Even on a shorter time scale, solar irradiance and its variability may have contributed to more than sixty percent of the total warming of the 20th century. The impact of solar activity like cosmic ray flux on the earth’s cloud cover has not been fully explored and may provide an additional forcing to the earth’s mean temperature change.” p. 1581

Khandekar, M. L., T. S. Murty, and P. Chittibabu. “The Global Warming Debate: A Review of the State of Science.” Pure and Applied Geophysics 162 (2005) 1557-1586

Care to try again?

oh, I'm sorry. I mean, care to dance around again?

 

[Alceste]

Really? NASA has the following graph on their website:

[graph]

Hmmm. Why does the above graph look very different to yours? NASA lying to us?

Because a quick skim over all of Oberon's nonsense reveals he's still banging on about localized climate changes, and does not understand what the word "global" means. His graph refers to air temperature. The authors are apparently unaware that the majority of the trapped heat we are concerned about is in the sea.

Summary of Research
Rebuttal

Tricky oceans
Water stores an immense amount of heat compared with air. It takes more than 1000 times as much energy to heat a cubic metre of water by 1 degree Centigrade as it does the same volume of air. Since the 1960s, over 90% of the excess heat due to higher greenhouse gas levels has gone into the oceans, and just 3% into warming the atmosphere (see figure 5.4 in the IPCC report (PDF)).

Tough choice. NAS+IPCC or Oberon.

Not really.

 

[themadhair]

1. Some reconstructions posit a warmer climate during the MWP
2. Even more posit a warmer far ealier
3. Those that do not show a warmer MWP now show a comparable warming trend.

2 is false unless the NAS and the IPCC are lying. It should be noted that the reason your brought this whole topic up was to try and discredit AGW which seems to have been forgotten by yourself.

Nice strawman, as if this is only my "opinion." I quoted peer-reviewed studies which disagree with the IPCC. Moreove, in previous posts I have shown that lead authors in IPCC studies document a blatant bias. Good try dancing around though.

So the IPCC and the NAS are accurately reflecting the current scientific consensus. Just come flat out and say it already.

I know you aren't stupid, so you must be deliberately deceptive here. I said satellite data. The graphs you quote are NOT obtained solely from satellite. Stop manipulating me and the data.

Are you saying NASA is fudging the figures? Are you saying the NASA graph is wrong and you have superior data? How is citing NASA on global temperature trends being ‘deliberately deceptive’??? Seriously??? At least I ******* cited my sources here, something which you did not do.

You can't seriously be that simple. Your study rules it out. I quote studies which don't. Therefore your sources must be correct? Please.

Actually yes. If UHI were the driving force, or at least a significant driving force, then why are areas of non-urbanisation showing such massive temperature increases? It is a simple piece of evidence that blows your UHI argument out of the water until some serious explanation for the disconnect is presented.

The relevant point remains that numerous studies show that the UHI is not adequately accounted for in climate reconstrutions. Proxy data often bare this out, and so does data from satellites.

See above.

Again with your strawman. I didn't just give my own opinion. I cited research.

Actually you cited that research because you think it supported your opinion. This is pretty much what you have been doing from the start. It doesn’t matter that the NAS was asked to weigh in, or that the IPCC is the consensus or that the majority of research doesn’t match your opinion – you will selectively seek out those pieces with those juicy quotes while deliberately ignoring the larger picture being shown by the research.

2. If something is "contextually wrong" then check it out for yourself:

I don’t have the relevant subscription – hence why I raised the point. Are you saying there is no contextual error and that the last millennium has been subject to a fall of 2 degrees? If so then you have some explaining to do given that every piece of data both of us have cited relating to that period has resoundingly disagreed.

If the climate has varied in ways comparable to the current warming trend, then this has implications for how much of the current trend is from anthropogenic causes.

And how is this comparable to the current trend and, more importantly, how did you determine that? Carbon dioxide levels appear to be higher today than at any time in the last 650,000 years as is methane (Stable Carbon Cycle–Climate Relationship During the Late Pleistocene, Siegenthaler et al 2005). The rate of increase is almost impossible to compare given the lack of resolution in the ancient samples. Plus this is completely ignoring the research which lead the NAS, the IPCC and the dozens of other science bodies to accept AGW as a reality.

Care to try again?

Note sure I need to. If UHI were the primary driving force of increasing temperature then those increases should show a statistical geographical significance to areas with high urbanisation. It doesn’t. Not sure how much this can be simplified for you Oberon. The IPCC looked at this (citing ‘Large-scale warming is not urban’, Parker 2004 and ‘A Demonstration That Large-Scale Warming Is Not Urban’, Parker 2006) and concluded:

In summary, although some individual sites may be affected, including some small rural locations, the UHI effect is not pervasive, as all global scale studies indicate it is a very small component of large scale averages. Accordingly, this assessment adds the same level of urban warming uncertainty as in the TAR: 0.006°C per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002°C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero.

Was that dancing?

 

[yossarian22]

It should also be noted that even if AGW is completely false, we still need to reduce carbon emission to stop ocean acidification.

 

[Alceste]

Actually you cited that research because you think it supported your opinion.

Therein lies the rub. That's what Oberon apparently thinks the game is. I don't think he realizes there is any other kind of game.

 

[themadhair]

It should also be noted that even if AGW is completely false, we still need to reduce carbon emission to stop ocean acidification.

We also need to reach a point where our energy needs are sustainable and pollution is drastically reduced if not eliminated.

 

[Alceste]

We also need to reach a point where our energy needs are sustainable and pollution is drastically reduced if not eliminated.

And a point where each community's supply of food and water is stable, local and sustainable.

 

[Oberon]

2 is false unless the NAS and the IPCC are lying.

No, it isn't. There are more reconstructions that posit a higher warming thousands of years ago than there are models which posit higher warming during the MWP.

It should be noted that the reason your brought this whole topic up was to try and discredit AGW which seems to have been forgotten by yourself.

No, it isn't. In fact, I specifically stated numerous times that we ARE affecting climate change. What I am arguing against is the idea that this is as harmful and as severe a change in climate as groups like the IPCC state, and that most proposed solutions are horribly flawed.

So the IPCC and the NAS are accurately reflecting the current scientific consensus. Just come flat out and say it already.

1. I do believe that that the consensus of experts is that the MWP was not quite as warm as the modern trend.
2. Virtually all reconstructions of that period, including Mann's new graph, show comparable warming
3. I don't even know how accurately statements made by the IPCC even reflect the views of its members. I have given several examples of lead authors of IPCC publications who disagree with their "summary for policy makers" and other parts of IPCC publications.
4. If the MWP was comparable to the modern trend (either slightly less, about the same, or hotter), than it says something about how much of the current warming trend is anthropogenic.
5. As I have shown, a number of peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals (not journals like Environment and Energy) show that the warmest period in the last 1000 years or so was the MWP.

Are you saying NASA is fudging the figures? Are you saying the NASA graph is wrong and you have superior data? How is citing NASA on global temperature trends being ‘deliberately deceptive’??? Seriously??? At least I ******* cited my sources here, something which you did not do.

Are you seriously not getting this? 2005 is the hottest year on record when we throw land temperature readings into the analysis. NASA did that. However, if you use only satellite data, as shown by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center, than you get a different picture:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/ann/msu2008-pg.gif

Satellite data vs. ground data

More satellite data

Actually yes. If UHI were the driving force, or at least a significant driving force, then why are areas of non-urbanisation showing such massive temperature increases?

1. As shown by the MWP and previous warming periods, significant warming can and does occur naturally

2."Here we use the difference between trends in observed surface temperatures in the continental United States and the corresponding trends in a reconstruction of surface temperatures determined from a reanalysis of global weather over the past 50 years, which is insensitive to surface observations, to estimate the impact of land-use changes on surface warming. Our results suggest that half of the observed decrease in diurnal temperature range is due to urban and other land-use changes.

Moreover, our estimate of 0.27

​

​

8C mean surface warming per century due to​

land-use changes is at least twice as high as previous estimates based on urbanization alone." ​

Kalney, E., and M. Cai. "Impact of urbanization and land use change con climate." Nature 377 (2003): 217-20.​

3. A lot of non-urbanized places are NOT showing the same trend. For example-​

Does antarctica count?:​

These are all graphs taken from NASA, of the longest records available for temperature data in various parts of antarctica-​

Where's that darn warming trend?​

It is a simple piece of evidence that blows your UHI argument out of the water until some serious explanation for the disconnect is presented.​

There are places all over the world that don't show the warming trend in nearly the same way as global avg.'s do, and (interestingly enough) they tend to by the areas where UHI and similar effects are not a pronounced.​

Furthermore, I have now provided you with several climate reconstructions of previous warmer periods.​

See above.​

Actually you cited that research because you think it supported your opinion. This is pretty much what you have been doing from the start. It doesn’t matter that the NAS was asked to weigh in, or that the IPCC is the consensus or that the majority of research doesn’t match your opinion – you will selectively seek out those pieces with those juicy quotes while deliberately ignoring the larger picture being shown by the research.​

Of course I am selecting research which supports my views. As are you. I have already given my opinion on the IPCC's bias, supported by IPCC lead authors. Furthermore, while I believe a wide consensus of scholars believe we are contributing to the warming trend, I believe that a substantial minority (perhaps even half) do not believe we are the driving force, nor that the issue of warming is as bad as it is often made out to be.​

I don’t have the relevant subscription – hence why I raised the point

Ok, I will get you a .pdf copy of any articles I cited that you can't access. Name the articles you want copies of, and I will put them up on online where you can download them​

 

[Alceste]

HALF!

LOL!

Amazing. Truly amazing.

This opinion is entirely based on your 6 year old anonymous voluntary survey of climate change skeptics, no doubt.

 

[Oberon]

HALF!

LOL!

Amazing. Truly amazing.

This opinion is entirely based on your 6 year old anonymous voluntary survey of climate change skeptics, no doubt.

Not really. It's mostly based on reading the literature. As for the survey, almost all surveys are anonymous. The whole point is to make the person comfortable in the fact that nothing they say can be used against them, because nobody will know it was them.

However, access was password protected, the scientists conducting the survey used a common method, and as for "skeptics" voting more than once, the same could be said for the people on the other side too.

Also, I'm not sure which opinion you are referring to. The graphs are taken from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center. All of my citations are taken from peer-reviewed journals. Maybe I should use wiki and sourcewatch.com, the REAL authorities on everything.

 

[themadhair]

No, it isn't. There are more reconstructions that posit a higher warming thousands of years ago than there are models which posit higher warming during the MWP.

So are you accusing the IPCC and the NAS of lying? Considering that their opinion on the available research isn’t what you are claiming then you must be accusing them of lying or at least fudging the data. Come out and say it.

No, it isn't. In fact, I specifically stated numerous times that we ARE affecting climate change. What I am arguing against is the idea that this is as harmful and as severe a change in climate as groups like the IPCC state, and that most proposed solutions are horribly flawed.

This would be somewhat more believable Oberon if you didn’t later state “If the MWP was comparable to the modern trend (either slightly less, about the same, or hotter), than it says something about how much of the current warming trend is anthropogenic.” You brought it up to claim that the MWP was warmer than current climate, something which the IPCC and the NAS believe is not reflected by the research. Moreover, methane and carbon dioxide levels were not comparable and neither, it appears, is the rate of current increase. So it isn’t comparable (which the NAS and IPCC agree on) and you are flat out lying here when you claim that you didn’t cite it as an argument against current consensus on AGW.

1. I do believe that that the consensus of experts is that the MWP was not quite as warm as the modern trend.

That only took, how many pages of to get you to admit????

2. Virtually all reconstructions of that period, including Mann's new graph, show comparable warming

Here is you again making the comparison with the MWP and current climate. Never mind all the other data (CO2, methane since it has been previously mentioned) that indicates they not as comparable as you would like people (such as the NAS and IPCC) to believe.

3. I don't even know how accurately statements made by the IPCC even reflect the views of its members.

Do you have the same reservations regarding the NAS? Or the AAAS? Or any one of the other scientific bodies that have issued statements in line with the IPCC?

5. As I have shown, a number of peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals (not journals like Environment and Energy) show that the warmest period in the last 1000 years or so was the MWP.

Hence the need for consensus and the taking of what the majority research supports.

Are you seriously not getting this? 2005 is the hottest year on record when we throw land temperature readings into the analysis. NASA did that. However, if you use only satellite data, as shown by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center, than you get a different picture:

I’m getting the obvious deception you are trying to sneak through here. To measure whether temperature is increasing you have to take into account the air temperature, the land temperature and the water temperature. By dishonestly cherry picking and avoiding the land and water temperatures, which due to having much higher specific heat capacities than air hold far more significance, you got the result you wanted. Why don’t you follow through with your convictions and accuse NASA’s inclusion of land temperature to be flawed?

1. As shown by the MWP and previous warming periods, significant warming can and does occur naturally

Be sure to tell the NAS and the IPCC that they forgot about the natural factors.

I note that you ignored the IPCC (which actually estimated the effect of UHI from the research) and the NAS on this issue. I’m particularly wondering why you ignored the Parker research which pretty much ruled out UHI as a significant contributor to AGW. Or did these not adhere to your preconceptions and so much be ignored?

3. A lot of non-urbanized places are NOT showing the same trend.
…
There are places all over the world that don't show the warming trend in nearly the same way as global avg.'s do, and (interestingly enough) they tend to by the areas where UHI and similar effects are not a pronounced.

I’m surprised but it appears that I have to actually explain some fundamentals to you. You see this debate is about GLOBAL trends. It is where we take the average global temperature and plot it against time to attempt to discern a pattern. In some locations temperature may go down and in others it may increase. What we are concerned with is the pattern as it occurs on a GLOBAL scale. That pattern has been discerned to be increasing. The questions for why that increase has been occurring is central to this debate. You have cited UHI as being a potential significant factor to increasing global temperatures. I should explain that by global temperatures I mean the combined average of temperature across all locations since I’m not entirely sure you know this meaning. If UHI were a significant contributor then there should be a statistical significance between temperature increases and urbanised areas. That there is no such significance demonstrates that UHI is not a significant factor to current climate change trends.
I genuinely can’t put it in more simple terms than the above Oberon, but if you really think that citing a few non-urbanised locations with relatively constant temperature even comes close to helping your case then I don’t think I can help you. When you make the claim that such areas lacking in trends akin to the global average ‘tend to by the areas where UHI and similar effects are not as pronounced’ you are making a false claim – ffs the paper I linked a few posts ago (Global temperature change, Hansen et al 2006) has a map of the temperature increases which you can see clearly isn’t adhering to any urbanisation pattern.

Furthermore, I have now provided you with several climate reconstructions of previous warmer periods.

And completely ignored my response explaining why they were not suitable comparisons. But you seem to do that a lot.

Furthermore, while I believe a wide consensus of scholars believe we are contributing to the warming trend, I believe that a substantial minority (perhaps even half) do not believe we are the driving force, nor that the issue of warming is as bad as it is often made out to be.

Guess all those scientific bodies are misrepresenting the state of current research then. Why not come flat out and say it since this is what you are clearly implying?

Ok, I will get you a .pdf copy of any articles I cited that you can't access. Name the articles you want copies of, and I will put them up on online where you can download them

Just this one so far:
[FONT=&quot]Sorokhtin, O. G., et al. “Evolution of the Earth’s Global Climate.” Energy sources, Part A 29 (2007):1-19.[/FONT]
The website hosting it (Informaworld) isn’t one I’ve access to and doesn’t seem to share its articles with other sites that I do have access to.

 

[Renji]

With the graphs shown, are we already in the alarming stage (but I think we should not wait for that to happen)? Some weather analysts here in our country said that climate change is "not yet" affecting Philippines (although some seasons in our country are starting to change).