Lancer

"How They Faked Global Warming" [REOPENED: Read post 354]

3,566 posts in this topic

Actually we know more about clouds than you suggest. We know that low clouds would be a positive feedback cycle, while high clouds would cause negative feedback.

What we don't know is what sort of clouds are likely to be formed.

 

Yeah - that's actually the point. The initial assumption was that ALL clouds caused heating (positive feedback).

Share this post


Link to post

When was that assumption? Certainly not any time in the last 10 years.

Share this post


Link to post

That's all well and good, but the correlations appear slightly weaker in the last few decades of their data and they don't have any data for the last 20 years (more for some graphs).

Share this post


Link to post

Well for starters, after recent allegations against IPCC and climate scientist temperature reporting methods, we can't guarantee the integrity of the last 10 years worth of data. Also note the same jump in temps in the late 1800's, which looks identical to the trend we see late in the 1900's. All I see is the beginning of a possible repetition of an earlier precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
. What the absolute magnitude of potential warming is likely to be is not known, as a lot of it assumes positive feedbacks, which are not proven.

 

There is uncertainty both ways though, is there not? IIUC the IPCC approach does not reflect positive feedbacks that Jim Hansen, for example, thinks are likely.

Share this post


Link to post
1998 was hailed as the warmest year ever, and was cited as evidence of mans' impact on the climate. At the time, the particularly strong El Nino was ignored so that James Hansen could go to congress, ensure that the air conditioning was turned off, and mop his brow as he prophesised the apocalypse.

 

Its a bit disingeneous to point at it as evidence that the world is the hottest ever, then ignore it when predictions of even more heating don't eventuate.

 

Hansen is more extreme than the mainstream. IIRC the mainstream did not rely on one data point, and has warned against relying on a single data point.

 

In any case, the 1990s overall, were the warmest decade. Until the 2000's.

Share this post


Link to post

Further, here's a graph of satellite recorded temps versus CO2 levels. Temps drop early 2000's and maintain a consistent level whilst CO2 rises.

 

temp.jpg

 

Decreasing solar activity in the last few years.

 

sa_tsi_1600_en.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Would you invest trillions on dollars in the stock exchange on the basis of models that purport to show that GDP will continue to increase?

 

yes, of course. At the department of transportation we DO assume GDP will increase, and that factors into projections of freight and passenger traffic that drive major investments. Perhaps I am misunderstanding your question?

 

Yes, it does indicate the need to fully understand cycles and their causes. But at the moment, we have people wanting to spend billions trillions and claiming that they understand it fully.

 

But we may not have time to understand it fully. The longer we wait to take action, the more difficult action will be. And many of the actions we will take will have benefits OTHER than GHG reduction - reduction in traditional 'criteria' pollutants, and "energy security".

Share this post


Link to post
Further, here's a graph of satellite recorded temps versus CO2 levels. Temps drop early 2000's and maintain a consistent level whilst CO2 rises.

 

temp.jpg

 

Decreasing solar activity in the last few years.

 

sa_tsi_1600_en.jpg

 

And what is the justification for the prediction of reduced solar activity for the next 50 years?

Share this post


Link to post
Further, here's a graph of satellite recorded temps versus CO2 levels. Temps drop early 2000's and maintain a consistent level whilst CO2 rises.

 

I am not a statistician, but as someone who works with them, and has been told repeatedly "We can't do time series analysis without more data points!" I kind of thing there may be an issue with statistical significance there.

Share this post


Link to post

here is a different take on the Jone interview

 

http://climateprogress.org/2010/02/16/bbc-interview-phil-jones-climate-science-when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife/

 

 

"What Jones actually said is that, while the globe has nominally warmed since 1995, it is difficult to establish the statistical significance of that warming given the short nature of the time interval (1995-present) involved. The warming trend consequently doesn’t quite achieve statistical significance. But it is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a time interval as short as 15 years–a point we have made countless times at RealClimate. It is also worth noting that the CRU record indicates slightly less warming than other global temperature estimates such as the GISS record."

Share this post


Link to post
I am not a statistician, but as someone who works with them, and has been told repeatedly "We can't do time series analysis without more data points!" I kind of thing there may be an issue with statistical significance there.

 

Sorry, refer to post further up. I was responding to a comment from PiMan saying the temp graph didn't show the latest data.

Share this post


Link to post
The interviewee says that solar has some influence [not quantified], volcanos have some influence [not quantified].

 

No, this is what he said:

 

"When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period."

 

IE that the net influences from solar and vulcanism should have led to COOLING.

 

Or as Gavin Schmidt said

 

"NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt put it more clearly when asked, “What percentage of global warming is due to human causes vs. natural causes?” Since we would have expected cooling, and natural variability is only in the range of 0.1°C, “so given the warming of ~0.5 deg C, I’d say somewhere between 80 to 120% of the warming” is due to human causes."

Edited by Lord of the Mark

Share this post


Link to post

Its not my fault that the scientists try and claim robustness by quoting 95% confidence intervals. You can't shift the goalposts and suddenly claim that its OK, because while it fails the 95% signficance test, its actually 90% significant etc.

 

Of course you can. If I am not an editor of an academic journal, but a citizen concerned about public policy, I can choose any significance test that reflects an acceptable degree of risk. As long as I am wary of inconsistencies in applying it.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm now completely sold on the sunspot/magnetism connection to cooling. The magnetism blows away the cosmic rays. When there are few spots there's less magnetism and therefore more cosmic rays. Cosmic rays contribute to cloud formation and clouds reflect the sun which cools the Earth...and also the increased clouds contribute to the huge storms many have experience in the northern hemisphere definitely and in the southern perhaps, I just don't know. If the current sunspot cycle doesn't move along the dropping in temps will continue, imo.

Share this post


Link to post
I'm now completely sold on the sunspot/magnetism connection to cooling. .........

 

Yeah, but the earth was once flat, and the sun moved around us :)

 

I'm sure it has an effect mind you(the sun is after all the catalyst of life), but i just dont like one solution answers, the systems we are talking about(environment) are just so massivley complex, with so many variables; the biggest recent one being ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
If anyone doubts the link between solar activity and temperatures, have a read of this.

 

http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/lassen1.html

 

Just a few nitpicks about sunspot 'spotting'.

The early data was taken with 1) alot less instruments on a worldwide basis, so if it was a cloudy time there might be times when data simply could not be collected 2) telescopes were alot smaller then instruments used today so the smallest sunspots could not be 'spotted'.

A quick check learned me that the largest usable diameter of a telescope for solar observation is 1 meter. The biggest in use in 1750 (the time that solar observations took on a permanent character in western astronomy) was 50 cm diameter.

 

Further, here's a graph of satellite recorded temps versus CO2 levels. Temps drop early 2000's and maintain a consistent level whilst CO2 rises.

 

Surface temperatures, or temperatures in the upper stratosphere (about 80 km above ground level)? Solar activity seems to have the most impact in the highest atmospheric layer.

 

And what is the justification for the prediction of reduced solar activity for the next 50 years?

 

In 2003, I was traveling with a group, one of them a retired solar physicus. He gave us a lesson one day on his field. He said indications were to a decrease in solar activity for the next few decades, and he hypothised about a new Maunder Minimum.

Fact of the matter is that the current solar cycle was very slow in starting. There's only been moderate continuous sunspot activity since September last year after a nearly 2 year minimum.

Share this post


Link to post
Just a few nitpicks about sunspot 'spotting'.

The early data was taken with 1) alot less instruments on a worldwide basis, so if it was a cloudy time there might be times when data simply could not be collected 2) telescopes were alot smaller then instruments used today so the smallest sunspots could not be 'spotted'.

A quick check learned me that the largest usable diameter of a telescope for solar observation is 1 meter. The biggest in use in 1750 (the time that solar observations took on a permanent character in western astronomy) was 50 cm diameter.

 

Carbon-14 (which is used for carbon dating) rises during low solar activity and is "burnt off" during high solar activity. It's apparently a scientific process well known and well proven. From this they can accurately predict solar activity from the past. This is also a "natural" result too since the only thing man-made that gives off carbon-14 is nuclear blasts (which have only occured since the 1940's - 1990's). Carbon-14 is then absorbed by organic matter which reflects directly the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere.

 

I would take the figures as more accurate than dodgy.

 

Just to note, C-12 is the man-made carbon which is entering the atmosphere.

Share this post


Link to post
And it is agreed that the impact of CO2 is not linear with CO2: diminishing returns.

 

...

 

That's actually a good point.

 

The rest of your post remains complete nonsense though, because of your lack of understanding of statistics.

 

Perhaps you can ask LOTM if he can explain better to you why

 

"We can only say with less than 95% probability that there has been a warming based on the 1995-2009 data."

 

does not equal

 

"There has been a pause in global warming the last 15 years."

 

which means, when restated a bit more scientifically:

 

"There is more than 95% chance that the decade-normalized temperature evolution between 1995 and 2009 is lower than +0.02 degrees." (or whatever degree variation is considered normal)

Share this post


Link to post

There seems to be many who do not want to believe in Global Warming and showing statistical significance of global temperature changes in short time periods will indeed be difficult.

 

However, the data on CO2 quantities in the air increasing is pretty clear, and I've not seen people arguing that fact. The sceptic argument seems to be focused on whether that is causing warming.

 

Now, let's step back just a moment. What if we call it Global Heating instead of Global Warming ? You know, when you take a bowl of water-ice mix (at a temperature 0 Celsius) and you start heating it, then for a while you will not see any significant temperature change -- at least not "globally" within the bowl. What you see is the ice melting. Only when all the ice has melted, then you will see the temperature rising if you still keep heating the bowl.

 

Now, let's look at how is the ice doing in our big bowl, shall we ?

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-107

Share this post


Link to post

It's not so much that we don't believe global warming is an issue or not, it's just that the evidence presented, and especially from the IPCC, is suspect. This is due to numerous factors such as failure of peer review and vested commercial interests in the industries that will profit from extreme global warming (take Gore for instance). I'm just highly suspect of the data as presented showing such a high global warming occurring. That's all.

Share this post


Link to post
Carbon-14 (which is used for carbon dating) rises during low solar activity and is "burnt off" during high solar activity. It's apparently a scientific process well known and well proven. From this they can accurately predict solar activity from the past. This is also a "natural" result too since the only thing man-made that gives off carbon-14 is nuclear blasts (which have only occured since the 1940's - 1990's). Carbon-14 is then absorbed by organic matter which reflects directly the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere.

 

I do hope the C-14 dating method isn't used for creating statistics about solar activity from say more then a millennium ago. That far back, the "noise" level in the dating method about exceeds the duration of a solar cycle...

 

This is due to numerous factors such as failure of peer review and vested commercial interests in the industries that will profit from extreme global warming (take Gore for instance). I'm just highly suspect of the data as presented showing such a high global warming occurring. That's all.

 

It's the same method denyers (sp?) from global warming use to advocate their point of view when they still held a majority point of view so to speak. ;)

Mind you, I'm not telling I agree with this kind of methods by either side, just observing.

Share this post


Link to post
...

The rest of your post remains complete nonsense though, because of your lack of understanding of statistics.

You are stating your assumption as if it were a fact. FYI, I have an honours degree in engineering, which includes two statistics papers.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now