My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[InfiniteNow]

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

 

One problem is that the temperature change leads, not lags, solar activity changes earlier in the 20th century, despite the statements in your attachment that it lags. Also, there is a very poor correlation for several decades prior to that.

 

 

 

Solar variability certainly plays a minor role, but it looks like only a quarter of the recent variations can be attributed to the Sun.

 

Global Warming -- Research Issues

 

 

The relatively large TSI rise that occurs later does not begin until 1930, lagging the temperature rise by 20 years, and so the temperature rise starting in 1910 cannot be caused by solar variation.

 

More here:

 

NASA/Marshall Solar Physics

 

 

 

 

He's also screwed up his calculations on the impact of CO₂ on atmospheric temperature. CO₂ accounted for perhaps 0.1 ºC of the warming during the whole span from 1900-1940, but he then extrapolates that same temperature impact through the 21st century as if CO₂ concentrations were in some sort of equilibrium.

[Biochemist]

One problem is that the temperature change leads, not lags, solar activity changes earlier in the 20th century, despite the statements in your attachment that it lags.

Isn't this a case of you two using different temperature data?

[InfiniteNow]

Isn't this a case of you two using different temperature data?

 

Can you elaborate?

[Michaelangelica]

This ABC (Australia) radio show is usually excellent.

It will be broadcast this weekend

Background Briefing

Background Briefing <[email protected]>

to me

 

show details

16:37 (26 minutes ago)

ABC Radio National's Background Briefing continues to bring you agenda setting news and current affairs and investigative journalism from around Australia and the world.

 

This week on Background Briefing....

 

THE CLIMATE ENGINEERS

Reporter: Wendy Carlisle

For years it's been one of the science community's great taboos but the idea of global climate control is starting to be openly discussed. Ideas like placing giant mirrors in space or firing sulphur particles into the stratosphere to cool the planet are no longer just in the domain of science fiction. Many scientists now believe the time for these ideas will come.

 

Sunday 6th April 9.10am

Tuesday 8th April 7.05pm

Wednesday 9th April 4.05am

 

The audio of each Background Briefing is available on-line for four weeks after the program goes to air. To listen back to recent programs or download them to your computer or mp3 player, click on the links below.

[Biochemist]

Can you elaborate?

If I understand your point, you suggested that the temperature increase preceded the solar cycle. The authors in the link I posted suggested the reverse.

 

My (somewhat naive) understanding of this issue is that a lot off the source data is heavily contested. That is, the data is heterogeneous. Specifically:

 

1) some temperature data is influenced over time by increased exposure to heavily populated areas

2) some of the satellite data screens out the population density anomalies, but does not support the time sequence of changes we might expect for the "greenhouse" effect

3) The time sequences necessarily use different temperature assessment techniques over time (since satellites are relatively recent) and the long-window time series are aggregations of multiple recording methodologies

4) US data tends to be more resilient that non-US data

 

I don't claim to have any particular depth in this discussion, but I am always surprised when any graph shows "temperature" (without caveats or variance bars) when the temperature detail itself is so heavily contested.

[goku]

?so how much has it warmed up?

 

i am refurring to the temperature of the earth of course.

 

i have seen the charts, just want to be sure i'm reading it right.

[InfiniteNow]

My (somewhat naive) understanding of this issue is that a lot off the source data is heavily contested. That is, the data is heterogeneous.

 

<...>

 

I don't claim to have any particular depth in this discussion, but I am always surprised when any graph shows "temperature" (without caveats or variance bars) when the temperature detail itself is so heavily contested.

 

The data I shared was sourced. You really should try checking there before commenting. To save you the trouble, you'll find that data is not limited to landbased nor US only.

 

Now, what data exactly do you find "heavily contested?" Be specific. Tell us all which data points of which observations.

 

I personally couldn't care less how much "depth" you have in this discussion, you have enough undrestanding of the scientific method to know that you cannot simply make blanket claims with no supporting evidence, simply sowing the seeds of doubt with speculative and unsupported hand waving, and expect to be taken seriously.

 

If you know of specific data points being contested, then direct us to them. If not, then it's time for you to quit with your academically dishonest denialist nonsense.

[InfiniteNow]

i am refurring to the temperature of the earth of course.

 

i have seen the charts, just want to be sure i'm reading it right.

 

Since when, and where? Are you talking on average, or overall? Do you understand that even small changes have tremendous impact, so the scope of the change may seem tiny, but unless you've studed paleoclimatology and ecology you may not be equipped to recognize the significance of a few temperature points? To be clear, I am not suggesting that you're not equipped, just that if you don't understand this well enough, 1 degree doesn't sound like a whole lot, but it truly is since the global climate system is all about balance... and a delicate one at that.

[Biochemist]

The data I shared was sourced. You really should try checking there before commenting.

As was mine. Given your consistent hostile tone, I will return to blocking your posts.

[REASON]

My (somewhat naive) understanding of this issue is that a lot off the source data is heavily contested.....

 

I don't claim to have any particular depth in this discussion, but I am always surprised when any graph shows "temperature" (without caveats or variance bars) when the temperature detail itself is so heavily contested.

 

But the truth is, the reality of the rapid increase in mean global temperature is NOT, I say NOT, heavily contested among climate scientists worldwide. Promoting the notion that it is heavily contested is a tactic used by those who have interests in thwarting the science by continually suggesting that the jury is still out on the matter among scientists.

 

But it is just not the case. And why you continue to promote these false notions in the public setting of these forums remains the real mystery.

[Biochemist]

But the truth is, the reality of the rapid increase in mean global temperature is NOT, I say NOT, heavily contested among climate scientists worldwide.

Thanks, R. I don't think anyone was contesting the general notion that the temp has risen, as least since 1960. The question on the table here was exactly when. InfNow flatly rejected the implications that warming was (in the main) due to solar activity because he contended that warming preceded the solar increase. The link I posted identified a lag and was hence contradictory, and also used a much longer time series (back to the Maunder and Dalton minima).

 

This is not a just a theory variance on the same data. These two positions are using different data.

 

I was just trying to elicit a non-hostile response on the variances around the temperature data, and the various interpretive techniques therein.

[goku]

Since when, and where? Are you talking on average, or overall? Do you understand that even small changes have tremendous impact, so the scope of the change may seem tiny, but unless you've studed paleoclimatology and ecology you may not be equipped to recognize the significance of a few temperature points? To be clear, I am not suggesting that you're not equipped, just that if you don't understand this well enough, 1 degree doesn't sound like a whole lot, but it truly is since the global climate system is all about balance... and a delicate one at that.

 

oh yes, i understand that even a drop, no matter how big the bucket, makes a difference :)

[GeneralMotors]

human beings have always had the issue of massively changing our surroundings (instead of adapting to the environment, we try to change it). This because we are capable of changing things in mass amounts. For example, the hunting of whales went on to almost such a state that whales nearly went extinct.

However, we also have the advantage of realizing our actions and stopping things before its too late.

 

I think the same will go for CO2 emissions. Sooner or later, we will realize that the amount of our direct influence on the levels of CO2 is immense and that it may cause a chain effect that will cause changes in our natural environment.

[REASON]

I think the same will go for CO2 emissions. Sooner or later, we will realize that the amount of our direct influence on the levels of CO2 is immense and that it may cause a chain effect that will cause changes in our natural environment.

 

I think that realization has already been made by those conducting the research. Denialism, protectionism, and resistance to change are keeping us from from being proactive in generating and utilizing energy in a more environmentally conscious way.

 

We are likely to wait until it is forced upon us, and even then, I expect there will still be those that deny our climatological impact.

[Biochemist]

Denialism, protectionism, and resistance to change are keeping us from from being proactive in generating and utilizing energy in a more environmentally conscious way.

Hmmm. This sure seems a little strong. I really don't think that John Christy at U of Alabama Hunstville is head-in-the-sand kind of guy. I recognize he is a minority, but science is not a democracy.

 

I am a little irritated that when I post (what appear to be) legitimate counterarguments in this thread, I get grouped in with mindless reactionaries. I think there is a legitimate scientific argument that 1) C02 did rise, but 2) it was not the key causal factor in warming.

 

No one in this thread seems to regard this as an informed position. Do we have to get John Christy to personally contribute to get respect for the position on this thread?

 

The previous link I posted also suggested that the forcing for CO2 is not linear, and that the VAST majority of CO2 heat retention has already occurred. In that model, dramatically elevated CO2 has little incremental effect on heat retention. It seems like this thread has elected to ignore that position too, as some sort of "extremist" or "denier" position.

 

The link I posted above, also has a reasonably concrete falsifiable element, in that the authors contend that we will see a shift to cooling by 2013. Goodness. That won't be tough to notice.

 

To me, it sort of seems like science, not denialism.

[Zythryn]

Biochemist, I do apologize, but in the last few pages I couldn't find the link. Could you either post the link again, or tell me which post number it is in?

I love seeing faslifiable contrarian theories and would be most interested in following up with it.

Or, in short, can you tell me if it predicts a change in the long term trend, or is it predicting a temp change to lower than average by 2013? The long term trend would be the most useful. Are there any other predictions this theory/hypothesis makes?

[REASON]

First of all, my comments were intended toward a general rejectionist sentiment that is promoted in this country, in which the attitude is probably not so surprising considering the United States is the biggest contributer to greenhouse gas emissions in the world, and would therefore have to be willing to make the most significant changes. This is seen as economically problematic and I suspect is an important reason why we, as policy, refuse to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

 

It does seem somewhat telling though, that you felt I was speaking to you personally.

 

 

Hmmm. This sure seems a little strong. I really don't think that John Christy at U of Alabama Hunstville is head-in-the-sand kind of guy. I recognize he is a minority, but science is not a democracy.

 

Does his research suggest it is important to develop clean, environmentally conscious energy production and usage practices? If so, what are they? If not, why not?

 

 

I am a little irritated that when I post (what appear to be) legitimate counterarguments in this thread, I get grouped in with mindless reactionaries.

 

Not once have I ever grouped you with "mindless reactionaries." I find you anything but mindless, Bio. You are highly intelligent. What is curious to me is what causes someone as intelligent as you to find credibility in scientists with questionable motives, such as Richard Lindzen whom you mentioned in post #282, and to be so suspicious of the motives of the IPCC who has conducted far more research and accumulated far more data.

 

 

I think there is a legitimate scientific argument that 1) C02 did rise, but 2) it was not the key causal factor in warming.

 

No one in this thread seems to regard this as an informed position. Do we have to get John Christy to personally contribute to get respect for the position on this thread?

 

The previous link I posted also suggested that the forcing for CO2 is not linear, and that the VAST majority of CO2 heat retention has already occurred. In that model, dramatically elevated CO2 has little incremental effect on heat retention. It seems like this thread has elected to ignore that position too, as some sort of "extremist" or "denier" position.

 

The link I posted above, also has a reasonably concrete falsifiable element, in that the authors contend that we will see a shift to cooling by 2013. Goodness. That won't be tough to notice.

 

To me, it sort of seems like science, not denialism.

 

I agree that there is a difference between an informed scientific critique and uninformed denialism. While there may be some examples of informed scientific critiques such as Christy's, how are his findings received by his peers? If they are discounted or rejected outright by a preponderance of his counterparts, would you feel it was an unjust reaction by the scientific community?

 

What do you feel are the underlying political or conspiratorial motives, if any, of the IPCC? What are they really trying to accomplish if not to understand the nature and causation of climate change?