My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Michaelangelica]

More Proof of Global Warming

[belovelife]

The Orbiting Carbon Observatory And The Mystery Of The Missing Sinks

 

http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102415811097&e=001vENEzbMENW8yVOLtNCJuVIUaNgnLEookAKvgm2YKTFnnmOn2tV3WLC5VmkJNV2BDDfyvtrnrv_6gwL3kb_Zo7ZgJoN4BpLkwpHNhPXL_raM9PP6hnI-K6KWG7uYp5Q0GFS_u3gsnGwN3v8Lxw-lLWtRFr5uWCE3V2kRK3ruN9IPv0ojD3-0_lsiZVtWmL3GSo2WY_bxDpL0=

[freeztar]

Yes, they are listed as rural. I am listed as rural (which is an accurate declaration). However, due to the road improvement on the south border of my property, any weather station temp data would be affected were I to place a station within 60 feet (or potentially more). The term UHI is misleading in that it makes one believe it only happens in metropolis (or gotham city). It happens anywhere you add buildings, tar roads (gravel to a lesser extent), open dirt fields (like happens in spring and fall).

 

Indeed. Well, accurately, it would be called a RHI (rural heat island effect).

Nonetheless, as stated many times in this thread, we have data from varied sources that point to the same trend (ice cores, sediment cores, satellites).

 

I chose one of the three as a representative of a potentially accurate measuring station, however surface stations notes the shading effect of the trees, and the sprinkler use near the station.

 

Local conditions can be factored into the equation given adequate funding and manpower.

It's defintiely something that needs to be addressed, but I highly doubt that you would see the satisfaction you demand from these results on a global level.

 

That particular station noted no significant warming since between and 2000 (where the data stops at GISS).

It only takes one station to form a mutiny.

 

The other two are obviously suspect data, and the GISS temp trend (upward) is suspect.

 

What, specifically, is suspicious?

I also added the link to the melborne info in that it also notes the heating effect in small towns. It is an ongoing study.

Nobody is denying that small, local climatic effects can not translate to the total global budget. Indeed, we have so much info because of such studies.

 

As far as your links, I did bother to read them, to the extent time allowed.

 

I hear you there. :steering:

[Cedars]

Indeed. Well, accurately, it would be called a RHI (rural heat island effect). :confused:

Nonetheless, as stated many times in this thread, we have data from varied sources that point to the same trend (ice cores, sediment cores, satellites).

Its SUPPOSED to warm up during interglacial periods! Its also not uncommon for the earth to be much warmer than it is right now, and the majority of the time of the earth has been warmer than what our averages are now. If I remember correctly, the entire existence of man has been during the low earth temperature spectrum (when looking at the big picture of average climate of the earth).

 

The conflict (and skeptism) arises when a cloistered group of individuals (note the IPCC does not do research) declare such events as man-made with 95% certainty levels under the guise of "scientifically accurate".

 

AMS '99: Scientists Present 1998 Temperature Trends

 

"The resulting time series shows the temperature trend in the lower troposphere is zero for 1979-97. At the same time, the temperature of the lower stratosphere has declined at a rate of -0.6 degrees C per decade. The warm El-Niño/Southern Oscillation of 1998 caused the warmest monthly temperature anomalies of any observed to date, with April and May 1998 near +0.7 C above the base period mean of 1982-91."

 

*note this is before Bush was elected and stifling science

 

Local conditions can be factored into the equation given adequate funding and manpower.

It's defintiely something that needs to be addressed, but I highly doubt that you would see the satisfaction you demand from these results on a global level.

Can be is a bunch different than declared with the levels of certainty projected by people who are trying to influence the foundation of our comfort level.

 

Local conditions (including heat island effects) vary by each location. And I am surprised you would have an issue with demanding quality from science (alleged science) over quantity.

 

It only takes one station to form a mutiny. :)

And were it only one station presented in this manner, I would be more skeptical of the impact. However I shall also take the opportunity to point out it only takes one government entity to skew the data for the whole country (or world):

 

Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product Watts Up With That?

 

What, specifically, is suspicious?

Did you even look at the pictures of the existing data sources? 2 of the 3 absolutely did not meet the minimum standards of measurement for such data gathering sources. Show me a link where you see them dropping the raw data temps in their official declarations of "this is what the temps really were a month ago, a year ago, etc."

 

Nobody is denying that small, local climatic effects can not translate to the total global budget. Indeed, we have so much info because of such studies.

The IPCC is denying this very thing and minimized its impact which is carried over into every projection they attempt.

 

Besides, adding more tainted data does not translate into better quality data.

 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/ushcn/rawurban3.5_pg.gif

 

http://www.coyoteblog.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/06/17/marysville_issues1.jpg

 

(marysville California weather data station)

[REASON]

Its SUPPOSED to warm up during interglacial periods! Its also not uncommon for the earth to be much warmer than it is right now, and the majority of the time of the earth has been warmer than what our averages are now. If I remember correctly, the entire existence of man has been during the low earth temperature spectrum (when looking at the big picture of average climate of the earth).

 

The conflict (and skeptism) arises when a cloistered group of individuals (note the IPCC does not do research) declare such events as man-made with 95% certainty levels under the guise of "scientifically accurate".....

 

 

The IPCC is denying this very thing and minimized its impact which is carried over into every projection they attempt.

 

Besides, adding more tainted data does not translate into better quality data.

 

I take it your conclusion is that the information presented by the IPCC is tainted, and should be disregarded because the climatologists from around the world that are contributing to IPCC reports have actually come together with some sort of unscrupulous motivations to fool concerned governments into providing more and more research grants.....

 

.....and that we would be better off continuing on as we have - business as usual.

 

Is that a reasonable take on your position?

[Cedars]

I take it your conclusion is that the information presented by the IPCC is tainted, and should be disregarded because the climatologists from around the world that are contributing to IPCC reports have actually come together with some sort of unscrupulous motivations to fool concerned governments into providing more and more research grants.....

 

.....and that we would be better off continuing on as we have - business as usual.

 

Is that a reasonable take on your position?

 

12 different links posted in the last week regarding temperature data accuracy and you choose to comment on the IPCC?

 

Thou shalt not deny the reality of the IPU!

 

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1792

[InfiniteNow]

Your links about localized and single inaccuracies does NOT negate the overall global average upward trend of warming. Even if we concede that some errors occurred locally, and that the posts you've made are valid inputs to the dialog, it still does nothing to negate the mountains of supporting information across research modalities that temperatures are on the rise when measured by global annual averages, and which steadfastly reinforce that the primary driver is anthropogenic contributions of CO₂ to the Earths atmosphere. It really is that simple, Cedars.

 

 

The gnats on the elephants back really don't effect its weight in any meaningful way.

[Essay]

The gnats on the elephants back really don't effect its weight in any meaningful way.

Even the birds on the elephants back don't....

~ :hihi:

[REASON]

12 different links posted in the last week regarding temperature data accuracy and you choose to comment on the IPCC?

 

Thou shalt not deny the reality of the IPU!

 

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1792

 

I was attempting to read into what you had posted. I mentioned the IPCC because you have mentioned the IPCC - directly in the post I responded to, and indirectly when you form an argument that the readings used to determine the global average temperature can be either inaccurate or falsified.

 

The link you provided in the previous post only reinforces what I interpret your position to be, that the information generated by the IPCC is suspect and less convincing than what you are reading from the rejectionist point of view.

 

It is simply a choice you are making as you consider the information presented by both sides of the argument. I simply wonder what is actually driving your skepticism of a Nobel Prize winning panel of climate scientists, and I wonder whether it is really about the science or politics in your mind.

 

I'm still curious because your last post sort of avoided addressing my presumption.

 

Based on clear research of the information provided, do you think we should reject the notion of AGW as informed by the IPCC and continue burning fossil fuels at the same rate or more than we are now?

[Cedars]

I was attempting to read into what you had posted. I mentioned the IPCC because you have mentioned the IPCC - directly in the post I responded to, and indirectly when you form an argument that the readings used to determine the global average temperature can be either inaccurate or falsified.

 

The link you provided in the previous post only reinforces what I interpret your position to be, that the information generated by the IPCC is suspect and less convincing than what you are reading from the rejectionist point of view.

 

It is simply a choice you are making as you consider the information presented by both sides of the argument. I simply wonder what is actually driving your skepticism of a Nobel Prize winning panel of climate scientists, and I wonder whether it is really about the science or politics in your mind.

 

I'm still curious because your last post sort of avoided addressing my presumption.

 

Based on clear research of the information provided, do you think we should reject the notion of AGW as informed by the IPCC and continue burning fossil fuels at the same rate or more than we are now?

 

Sigh....

Again, no comment on the data quality questions. Focus on the messenger, rather than the message.

[Essay]

As I mentioned the lack of time in post #1225....

I'd like to thank CraigD for a great job on the physics/quantum level stuff and thermodynamics part of answering Ceders question about a "chunk of CO2" in post #1230 http://hypography.com/forums/environmental-studies/13705-my-belief-global-warming-getting-shaky-123.html#post253201

When a photon “strikes” (or, more precisely, interacts) with an electron in an atom of any kind of matter, it is absorbed by the electron if it’s possible for that electron to change its position in the atom (more precisely, its atomic orbital) so that its energy increases by exactly the energy of the absorbed photon. If this transition is possible for electrons in many atoms of a material (liquid, gas, or solid), that material is opaque (or possibly reflective) to photons of that energy. If it isn’t, the material is transparent to them.

 

Possible atomic orbital transitions depend mostly on the structure of the atom and its interaction with its neighboring atoms. In general, the more massive an atom, and the more bound it is into molecules with other atoms, the more possible transitions its electrons have.

 

The electrons in the atoms of CO2 and other greenhouse gas molecules are mostly transparent to visible light, and mostly opaque to infrared.

How in the world does a vibrating CO2 chunk radiate HEAT?

 

It’s important to understand that to “radiate heat” means to emit photons of infrared EMR.

 

Emission of photons is the reverse of absorption of them.

One point I'd like to add (and please correct me if this is wrong or too fanciful):

 

The energy gained by absorbing an IR photon gets changed into kinetic energy (adding to the translational vibration) in the form of "speed" or velocity as well as other vibratory modes. Eventually, within seconds or minutes (depending on the concentration of possible collisions, uh....), ...eventually the molecule slows back down as it emits a photon ("re-emission").

So the kinetic energy is changed back into potential energy (photon) to be absorbed somewhere else.

 

Interestingly, several sources of kinetic energy can be summed within a molecule to create potential energy (an emission) of a higher energy level (quantum) than either kinetic contribution, by itself, would generate.

 

So, while usually the absorbed photon is "re-emitted" at the same or a lower energy level, with some of the kinetic energy bled off by collisions, entropy, whatever... sometimes a collision (or additional IR absorption) can provide the extra energy to boost a "re-emission" to a higher level than the original photon contributed.

 

So you have not only the actual process that CraigD described, but the added complexity of shifting levels of potential and kinetic energy--as quantum becomes classical and back again.

 

In summary GHG's are very good fluxes for that energy (heat) flowing around in the atmosphere--that is trying to make its way back out to space.

 

...and during that flux, a lot of the re-emissions are directed (randomly) back down toward the surface, or laterally towards other re-emitters ...away from deep space.

 

~ :hihi:

[REASON]

Sigh....

Again, no comment on the data quality questions. Focus on the messenger, rather than the message.

 

Okay, I get it. You don't want to address my bigger picture, general philosophy question. I'm asking it because I actually think others, freezy in particular, have already adequately responded to your questioning the reliability of the data points.

 

In my opinion, it is totally valid to expect that the individual temperature readings be as accurate as possible, and it is valid to identify potential inconsistencies. I don't believe that there exists any real desire to avoid refinement by the researchers, and scientists are willing to acknowledge where there are weaknesses in their data and take them into consideration as they develop their theory.

 

But to me, to stand on this specific issue as justification for your overall belief about the validity of AGW is like saying that showing statistics that Babe Ruth struck out a lot is all that is necessary to form the belief that he generally wasn't a good hitter, and doesn't deserve to be recognized as such and glorified in the MLB Hall of Fame. If someone told me that, I would tend to think that they are either not using enough information to form their belief about Babe Ruth, they have some particular bias against him, or they just don't know what the hell they're talking about.

 

Yes, when you're looking at the science, it's important to be as specific and accurate as possible. But when it comes to forming a belief, sometimes I think it is important to consider the bigger picture, and what it is that motivates our choices. When it comes to this topic, what is it in us that tends to accept or reject scientific information that leads to the conclusion of AGW?

 

I'm not convinced that those who reject AGW are doing so because they have more convincing climatological research than has been presented in IPCC reports, but because they have some other bias that keeps them focused on any information that supports the opposite conclusion.

 

I'm curious about the nature of those biases if they exist, and the influence they have on the way people form their beliefs about climate change in general. I've had the same curiousness about people's biases against the science of evolution in these threads as well, for instance, and I see similarities in the attitudes of those who reject each of these scientific conclusions.

 

It is true that to consider such things may mean getting somewhat personal, so I understand if you don't want to go there.

[Cedars]

Okay, I get it. You don't want to address my bigger picture, general philosophy question. I'm asking it because I actually think others, freezy in particular, have already adequately responded to your questioning the reliability of the data points.

Thats because I find the philosophical aspect the lesser of the inquiry when compared to the question of "is the science settled". Philosophy is sooo subjective.

 

Some of the responses have tried to adequately respond. But when the responses include quotes from the offical agencies in charge of temperature accuracy "counting lights from space to determine UHI" compared to the actual photographs of the stations positions on earth in daylight, I cant help but wonder, How bad does the science have to be before the proponents begin to demand quality?

In my opinion, it is totally valid to expect that the individual temperature readings be as accurate as possible, and it is valid to identify potential inconsistencies. I don't believe that there exists any real desire to avoid refinement by the researchers, and scientists are willing to acknowledge where there are weaknesses in their data and take them into consideration as they develop their theory.

Then you havent been spending much time observing the interactions between the skeptical side of this issue as they try to get data to test the theory.

But to me, to stand on this specific issue as justification for your overall belief about the validity of AGW is like saying that showing statistics that Babe Ruth struck out a lot is all that is necessary to form the belief that he generally wasn't a good hitter, and doesn't deserve to be recognized as such and glorified in the MLB Hall of Fame. If someone told me that, I would tend to think that they are either not using enough information to form their belief about Babe Ruth, they have some particular bias against him, or they just don't know what the hell they're talking about.

cute analogy. How would you react if you found out someone in charge of the statistics had altered the numbers for Babe Ruth, 40-50-60 years after the game ended? How would you react if you found out this same org had decided to adjust records of whole teams 40-50-60 years later?

Yes, when you're looking at the science, it's important to be as specific and accurate as possible. But when it comes to forming a belief, sometimes I think it is important to consider the bigger picture, and what it is that motivates our choices. When it comes to this topic, what is it in us that tends to accept or reject scientific information that leads to the conclusion of AGW?

I dunno, for some its general skeptism of the ability of science to predict climate changes in the future. Might have something to do with bird flu pandemics. For others it may be they expect more from science than they do from the doomsayers of the religiously indoctrined.

 

I'm not convinced that those who reject AGW are doing so because they have more convincing climatological research than has been presented in IPCC reports, but because they have some other bias that keeps them focused on any information that supports the opposite conclusion.

Wow. Why cant it be that the IPCC reports themselves are not convincing? Why cant it be the IPCC reports are biased? And those who look no where else for answers are not biased? Strikingly similar to the people who do not look beyond the bible for answers.

I'm curious about the nature of those biases if they exist, and the influence they have on the way people form their beliefs about climate change in general. I've had the same curiousness about people's biases against the science of evolution in these threads as well, for instance, and I see similarities in the attitudes of those who reject each of these scientific conclusions.

Really? How's this then:

Climate changes. Thats a fact. Ice ages come and go and in-between it warms up. It varies, the distance of time between these extremes. Inbetween those extremes we have other climate extremes. Globally and locally. Little ice ages, medieval warmings, times when the ice in the antarctic reduces dramatically leaving open water areas the size of Texas (I expect science to discover this same feature over the arctic as they explore more), times when under the existing glaciers of greenland/iceland, blooming prairies existed. 600k years ago. The Iceman revealed his existence AFTER the glacier melted. He didnt tunnel down into a glacier to die. Only 5000 years ago he walked atop the snow, or maybe at that time it was the ground. Wow. Glaciers have melted (and expanded) before??? Before Man kicked a bit of Co2 into the air??

 

Climate changes. Adapt or go extinct.

[InfiniteNow]

cute analogy. How would you react if you found out someone in charge of the statistics had altered the numbers for Babe Ruth, 40-50-60 years after the game ended? How would you react if you found out this same org had decided to adjust records of whole teams 40-50-60 years later?

Your counter argument to REASONs analogy only works if EVERY statitician was changing the numbers. That seriously strains credulity. Why is the global conspiracy concept easier for you to accept?

 

 

 

Climate changes. Adapt or go extinct.

 

I agree. We simply MUST adapt, and stop adding CO₂ to the atmosphere like we are today or we're going to go extinct far more quickly than we need to, along with countless other species. Now, of course, that's not what YOU meant, as you're mind is made up in one direction and you find data supporting your conclusion more salient than the opposing data which refutes your position, but I agreed with your closing point and wanted to post on something about which we agree.

 

We must adapt or we will go extinct. Now, you and I simply need to find common ground on the specifics and details on how best to perform that adaptation and where to focus our energies.

 

 

 

Btw - Nice post, REASON. Well said.

[Cedars]

Your counter argument to REASONs analogy only works if EVERY statitician was changing the numbers. That seriously strains credulity. Why is the global conspiracy concept easier for you to accept?

Yawn:

Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product Watts Up With That?

 

This is why you dont often see me in theology arguing with believers.

 

Climate changes. Thats a fact. Ice ages come and go and in-between it warms up. It varies, the distance of time between these extremes. Inbetween those extremes we have other climate extremes. Globally and locally. Little ice ages, medieval warmings, times when the ice in the antarctic reduces dramatically leaving open water areas the size of Texas (I expect science to discover this same feature over the arctic as they explore more), times when under the existing glaciers of greenland/iceland, blooming prairies existed. 600k years ago. The Iceman revealed his existence AFTER the glacier melted. He didnt tunnel down into a glacier to die. Only 5000 years ago he walked atop the snow, or maybe at that time it was the ground. Wow. Glaciers have melted (and expanded) before??? Before Man kicked a bit of Co2 into the air??

[InfiniteNow]

Yawn:

Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product Watts Up With That?

 

Ahhh... Yes. The classic "Yawn" argument. That's always hard to beat. It's almost as awe-inspiring as the argument I used to get from the 4 and 5 year olds I taught where they would respond, "So?" :)

 

I'm sorry. I showed where your response to the analogy was flawed, as it would need to apply to EVERY single statistic and temperature reading and demonstrate that they were ALL wrong and ALL adjusted. Where exactly does this link you shared demonstrate that every single temperature measurement we've made is faulty? Your link itself acknowledges the limited scope of the issue. I will quote them here:

 

in the case of the near surface temperature record, we have

many

long period stations than

[sic]

span the majority of the time period shown above, and they have already been adjusted

 

 

Readers should note the key word "many." That does NOT mean "ALL." Ergo, your response fails to demonstrate that all temperature readings are faulty. Also, how do they quantize many? I'm not seeing that anywhere. Do they mean 2, maybe 6? How about 100? Do they mean 1,000? Gosh... Many is SUCH a descriptive scientific term. :naughty:

 

 

Also, can you please point out to me where they had their assumptions and conclusions peer-reviewed for merit? I seem to be missing that on their site, but considering the unshakable nature of your tone, I presume they are there somewhere and that this is something more than handwaving.

 

 

Not only does your dismissive response fail to address my point, but neither does the reference you shared.

[Galapagos]

Your counter argument to REASONs analogy only works if EVERY statitician was changing the numbers. That seriously strains credulity. Why is the global conspiracy concept easier for you to accept?

 

Very good question, INow. This one always gets me when reading responses from evolution/AIDS/GW deniers. I'm honestly curious: how does one reasonably justify the belief in such a conspiracy?