My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Biochemist]

Relevance?

I give up.

[Turtle]

As you’re making a claim – and an interesting one, of which a reader such as myself would very much like to know more – you need to back it up with links or references. This is not merely an observation and suggestion, but a site rule.

 

Not to presume this is the particular instance of an IPCC official resigning that Bio referred to, but this is an instance of such a matter. :hihi:

 

- Prometheus: Chris Landsea Leaves IPCC Archives

This is an open letter to the community from Chris Landsea.

 

Dear colleagues,

 

After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.

...

I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record. ...

[InfiniteNow]

Craig,

 

Just to head this off a bit... There were some scientists who wished their name to be removed from the first publication of the IPCC. They had very special interests and decided that the conclusions of the IPCC didn't reflect their own personal interests.

 

Regardless if BC can share a link in support of his claim, it still does NOTHING to discredit the data, the conclusions, nor the next several reports with updated information which were released after these "scientists" requested their name not be included on the first output.

 

Beware the rabbit's hole.

 

I'm perfectly willing to entertain contrary data, but I'm growing quite annoyed at unsupported positions, denialist tactics, and trollish behavior where valid data and extremely well supported positions are ignored. BC hasn't yet shown a willingness to move beyond the game playing. His response to your request will be very telling, but still does zero to negate the mountains of evidence in support of the position he seems to be opposing.

[InfiniteNow]

Not to presume this is the particular instance of an IPCC official resigning that Bio referred to, but this is an instance of such a matter.

 

See post 275.

[Biochemist]

...BC hasn't yet shown a willingness to move beyond the game playing. ...

I asked you three separate times to use the model that you posted earlier to explain the anomaly in the relationship between modeled CO2 forcing and temperature for the period 1998-2008. You continue to contend that that question is somehow inexplicit

 

You have not only refused to answer the question, but you rely on insults to defend yourself.

[InfiniteNow]

I asked you three separate times to use the model that you posted earlier to explain the anomaly in the relationship between modeled CO2 forcing and temperature for the period 1998-2008. You continue to contend that that question is somehow inexplicit

 

You have not only refused to answer the question, but you rely on insults to defend yourself.

 

The models purpose is not explain what you've asked. It's as if you're asking me to explain how a study on caloric intake in mice predicted what great apes prefer for dinner.

 

You have yet to show where my data is false, and you're now "playing games" by trying to get me to use the data for something it was not intended.

 

There is no insult there. It's an accurate summation of what you are doing in this thread.

[Biochemist]

..you're now "playing games" by trying to get me to use the data for something it was not intended....

I am trying to get you to answer a question. And you are avoiding it.

 

It is pretty easy to show that CO2 and temperature are correlated from 1960 to 1990. They seem to. It is the OTHER time periods that show other trends. The point it not that your data is wrong, it is that your data is incomplete.

 

This is identical to the approach adopted by other entities, including (unfortunately) even some of the folks at NASA, but certainly IPCC.

 

I am asking for the FOURTH time to see if you can extrapolate your model to the time period 1998-2008, or explain WHY this question is somehow inapplicable!!!!!

[InfiniteNow]

I am asking for the FOURTH time to see if you can extrapolate your model to the time period 1998-2008, or explain WHY this question is somehow inapplicable!!!!!

I've answered your question already. Would you like me to perhaps address your question using a different model, because that would be applicable.

 

 

And, out of curiosity... What exactly do we gain by arbitrarily adjusting the endpoints of our graphs to start at 1998? Is it perchance that 1998 was one of the hottest years on record, and you want to show that... relative to that very warm year... the temperature hasn't risen dramatically since then?

 

It's important to know why you wish me to arbitrarily choose a different maximum on such a short time scale. I sense academic dishonesty coming, which is why I've been pushing back on you so hard. If you are truly interested in furthering knowledge, then be clear why you are making your request, or better yet, offer your own data to support the postion you are arguing (per site rules).

 

 

I assume you are going to suggest that 1998 was "the last year to warm," another argument already debunked:

 

 

It hasn't warmed since 1998

 

1998 was an unusually hot year as it featured the strongest El Nino of the century. In fact, from Jan to May, 2007 is tied with 1998 as hottest year on record. The WMO reported in August that January and April 2007 were the hottest on record.

 

However, when determining trends, you don't pick one month or year out of isolation - particularly if that year features a short term weather anomaly like El Nino. By this method, based on the fact that 2005 was .17°C hotter than 2000, you could conclude that the rate of global warming doubled from 2000 to 2005.

 

 

5 year moving average

When considering long term climate trends, you need to filter out short term weather anomalies like El Nino or volcanic eruptions - an easy way is to plot a 5 year average. This shows the trend hasn't reversed at all.

 

 

Line of best fit

 

While a 5 year average is visually compelling, a more rigorous statistical method to determine any trend is to apply a line of best fit to the data.

 

 

In this case, a line of best fit calculates the temperature trend is 0.16°C per decade from 1998 until July 2007. This is a close match to the temperature trend over the last 30 years (0.15°C from 1975 to 2007). So even starting from 1998, we find the planet is still warming at the same rate.

 

Emphasis mine.

 

 

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2005 Summation

Recent warming coincides with rapid growth of human-made greenhouse gases. Climate models show that the rate of warming is consistent with expectations.

 

 

 

 

So, my question (again, based on my unmatchable ignorance) is how does the "model" explain the "observed" data for the temperature plateau period 1998 through 2008?

 

Also, as I've now shown, your use of the word plateau is an invalid linguistic representation of the temperature observations being made.

 

 

 

.

[Erasmus00]

I am asking for the FOURTH time to see if you can extrapolate your model to the time period 1998-2008, or explain WHY this question is somehow inapplicable!!!!!

 

I actually can address this. 1998 was the height of a particularly strong el-nino, which means that it should have been unusually warm. The plateau then, is a little alarming, as 2008 temperatures are now comparable to those of unusually strong el nino years.

 

If you remove or control for the el-nino years 97-98, the warming becomes apparent. If you use five year averages as data points (always a better idea for erratic systems like climate, it washes out anomalies to get a trend), then the warming is also apparent.

 

As to your question about what a forcing model is: in a forcing model certain data sets (greenhouse gasses, solar activity, etc) are put into climate models by hand (the model has no other way of knowing solar activity, greenhouse gasses emissions etc). The graphs inf. was showing where done by taking a model, and inserting various data sets (solar activity without greenhouse gasses; green house gasses without solar activity, both together, etc), and looking at the various model predictions. All well accepted climate models that I have seen show that greenhouse gasses are the largest component of the current warming.

 

Lastly, Biochemist, I take from the name that you are or have worked as a biochemist. Not being a climate scientist, why do you put so little faith in the climate scientists? As a physicist, I trust climate scientists to sort out climate science, biochemists to sort out biochemistry, etc.

 

Earlier in the thread, you make a remark that you wouldn't buy a forcing model because you didn't understand it- but why should someone not trained in climate science be able to jump right in and understand it? Should the majority of the world doubt high energy physics because they don't understand how particle accelerators work? Why shouldn't we trust the climate scientists to understand they're own field well enough to trust the consensus that emerged in the 70s?

-Will

[Biochemist]

Nice post, Eras. Thanks.

 

I actually can address this. 1998 was the height of a particularly strong el-nino, which means that it should have been unusually warm. The plateau then, is a little alarming, as 2008 temperatures are now comparable to those of unusually strong el nino years.

 

If you remove or control for the el-nino years 97-98, the warming becomes apparent. If you use five year averages as data points (always a better idea for erratic systems like climate, it washes out anomalies to get a trend), then the warming is also apparent.

 

Thanks for the clarification.

 

As to your question about what a forcing model is:.....All well accepted climate models that I have seen show that greenhouse gasses are the largest component of the current warming.

Understood, Eras. I was actually attempting to take IN to task for characterizing a model as an observation.

Lastly, Biochemist, I take from the name that you are or have worked as a biochemist.

My actual degree is a Doctor of Pharmacy. I have not done work as a biochemist since 1978. And to be fair, that was work in tissue culture, not really biochemistry. I don't read a lot into folks' screen names here.

Not being a climate scientist, why do you put so little faith in the climate scientists?

I usually do. There is pretty strong heterogeneity among climate scientists about the causality of climate change. I suspect that everyone here is aware of the positions of John Christy (U of Alabama) John Christy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or Richard Lindzen Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia with respect to either the IPCC in specific or greenhouse causality in general. These gentlemen are actively involved in the relevant fields and they have thoughtful positions that are at least occasionally at odds with the "consensus".

...I trust climate scientists to sort out climate science, biochemists to sort out biochemistry...

Not a bad model. But if we restricted the posts here to those folks, we would have some pretty brief fora.

Earlier in the thread, you make a remark that you wouldn't buy a forcing model because you didn't understand it- but why should someone not trained in climate science be able to jump right in and understand it?

I did imply that, and I really should not have (my apologies). What I really meant was that complex models rise and fall on the integrity of thought in the model. I regard forcing as a moderately complex construct (as opposed to a more concrete measure of, say, CO2 directly). Any forcing model adds another degree of freedom to the validity of an assessment.

Should the majority of the world doubt high energy physics because they don't understand how particle accelerators work?

No. But if a bunch of physicists got together and asserted that the international community should get together and sign an international treaty to fund a $10 trillion accelerator for the public good, it is fair to suggest some non-physicists might want to weigh in on how we might better use that $10 trillion.

Why shouldn't we trust the climate scientists to understand they're own field well enough to trust the consensus that emerged in the 70s?

This is still an area of active research. Accepting the consensus on 1) average warming, and 2) some portion of CO2 causality does not obviate the value of debate about how (or whether) to do anything about it.

 

Again, nice post Eras.

[Erasmus00]

There is pretty strong heterogeneity among climate scientists about the causality of climate change.

 

The heterogeneity is more about the degree to which different factors influence the climate. There is universal consensus that warming is happening, and that CO2 causes warming. The big picture, so to speak. The rest is details, which are less well understood.

 

I suspect that everyone here is aware of the positions of John Christy (U of Alabama) John Christy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia or Richard Lindzen Richard Lindzen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia with respect to either the IPCC in specific or greenhouse causality in general. These gentlemen are actively involved in the relevant fields and they have thoughtful positions that are at least occasionally at odds with the "consensus".

 

Richard Lindzen is the only climate scientist I know of who rejects both warming and the very possibility its related to human kind. He also consults for oil companies (and back when he consulted for tobacco he rejected the health effects of second hand smoke, something well outside his field).

 

But, while I understand the rudiments of climate science, I don't have enough of an understanding to follow the actual science of their respective positions, which makes it difficult to separate the science from the politics.

 

Not a bad model. But if we restricted the posts here to those folks, we would have some pretty brief fora.

 

I didn't at all mean to imply that non-scientists have no right to weigh in, simply that I'm routinely surprised by the disregard for the people who actively study the area. In my field (high energy physics), the burden of proof always seems to be on those outside the consensus, while in highly politicized fields (climate science, among others) the burden of proof seems to be shifting more and more to the consensus scientists. Its a situation that I find both interesting, and strange. But it must be very frustrating to scientists in the field.

 

Also, I think global warming should stir up an active debate about the social policies that can/(should?) be implemented, etc. But how can we have an informed, reasonable debate without trusting the experts paid to study these phenomena?

 

This is still an area of active research. Accepting the consensus on 1) average warming, and 2) some portion of CO2 causality does not obviate the value of debate about how (or whether) to do anything about it.

 

I agree. I think, though, that far too much time is spent (at least in media) debating whether or not warming is taking place/whether or not its man made, and not enough on actions that could be taken.

-Will

[Essay]

Nice post, Eras. Thanks.

.... What I really meant was that complex models rise and fall on the integrity of thought in the model. I regard forcing as a moderately complex construct (as opposed to a more concrete measure of, say, CO2 directly). Any forcing model adds another degree of freedom to the validity of an assessment.

 

...and a nice, thoughtful post too, BC.

 

One point jumps out at me.

The word "forcing" or "forcer" is simply a description of each parameter (i.e. CO2, cloud cover, volcanic activity, albedo, etc.).

"Forcers" are not something concocted by scientists as another component (on top of CO2, albedo, etc.) of climate change. "Forcers" just refers to those factors which seem to affect climate.

 

Determining how these "forcers" change climate is the hard part, and open to lots of critique; but those "forcings" existed since the beginning of time, they're not some "moderately complex construct."

A "concrete measure" does nothing in a model, unless we tell it how to act (force), based on observations.

 

Am I making too much of this, or does this help?

:applause:

[Biochemist]

... The word "forcing" or "forcer" is simply a description of each parameter (i.e. CO2, cloud cover, volcanic activity, albedo, etc.).

"Forcers" are not something concocted by scientists...

Understood, and agreed, Es. I think the issue is that one would have to impute 1) a degree of "force" and 2) a relationship (linear or otherwise) between to "forcer" and temperature.

 

Conceivably, the temperature location (ocean, troposphere, etc) may have variant relationships with the forcer as well.

[Biochemist]

The heterogeneity is more about the degree to which different factors influence the climate. There is universal consensus that warming is happening, and that CO2 causes warming. The big picture, so to speak. The rest is details, which are less well understood.

Agreed. (Late edit added)- There is also considerable heterogeneity related to the risk. Some think the CO2 elevation might be self correcting.

Richard Lindzen is the only climate scientist I know of who rejects both warming and the very possibility its related to human kind.

I don't think he rejects the possibility. I think he rejects the causal connection. I don't think I accept the causal connect either- just the correlation.

I didn't at all mean to imply that non-scientists have no right to weigh in, simply that I'm routinely surprised by the disregard for the people who actively study the area.

I have a similar view, although it is almost backwards. I am routinely surprised that we pay so much attention to people with no expertise.

Also, I think global warming should stir up an active debate about the social policies that can/(should?) be implemented, etc. But how can we have an informed, reasonable debate without trusting the experts paid to study these phenomena?

Because (fundamentally) experts can't be trusted to act in a unbiased fashion when in a political context. The IPCC reports were classics for this.

[InfiniteNow]

There is also considerable heterogeneity related to the risk. Some think the CO2 elevation might be self correcting.

 

Like who? How about a source?

[Biochemist]

...There is universal consensus that warming is happening, and that CO2 causes warming. ...

Eras (or anyone)

 

Could someone confirm why the attached (showing correlation between solar activity and satellite temps, among other items) is invalid?

 

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

 

 

Bio

[goku]

?so how much has it warmed up?