My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Essay]

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.

Regarding the doomsayers, I think religious wisdom is informed by historical observation of natural (including social) systems.

===

 

But you think that science relates to Flu pandemics the same way that Elephant guns work here in the city? Y'know... I've got this gun to kill elephants and there are none around, so it must work.

You're essentially saying that science is 'making up' this possibility of Flu, so that science can show how effective its monitoring, prevention, and eradication programs are?

 

While I think they are missing some opportunities to search for natural resistance (in their culling programs), I am happy that they are using science to "adapt" to Flu's potential; and that we are not letting nature take its course and, through our business as usual strategies, letting nature decide how we "Adapt or go extinct."

===

 

As any one-celled species will die out if it only continues growing to fill its niche, so too will humans.

Only when one-celled creatures develop, and metamorphose into a biofilm, can they sustainably fill a niche.

Humans must focus more on development and less on growth.

Our 18th and 19th centuries saw mostly growth and expansion. What was the 20th century?

Where are we now? Are we focusing on growth and expansion, or on development and metamorphosis?

 

We couldn't survive as individuals, we needed families. We couldn't survive as families, we needed tribes. etc., ...tibes to clans, clans to city-states, city-states to nations, nations to....

Do you think we've stopped developing and that no fundamental new identities must emerge, if we are to continue without going the way of creatures who simply expand to fill their niche?

 

~ :)

 

p.s. Texas? 600kya?

[Cedars]

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?" :)

So are you saying you have this affect across the age spectrum? :)

 

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

My first reaction to the babe ruth analogy was to ignore it as irrelevant. But in the spirit of discussion I responded. Its hard to create a good response to a flawed analogy. But nice guy that I am I decided not to attack the messenger and deal with the available data (analogy).

 

Now to your alleged response. No one is claiming ALL temp records are incorrect or bad data. But of the (now over 800) USA temp stations that have been observed 69% come in with a poor rating (4 or 5). Based on the very rating system posted on the NOAA site. I didnt include the 20% which are classed by surfacestations.org as a 3 with a >=1 C temp flaw.

 

Were getting pretty darn close to ALL the stations if I do. So much for science.

 

But it continues to get stranger. There are 4 different people reporting these kinds of things.

From April 2008:

On average 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times in the last 2 1/2 years. The largest single jump was 0.27 C. This occurred between the Oct 13, 2006 and Jan 15, 2007 records when Aug 2006 changed from an anomoly of +0.43C to +0.70C, a change of nearly 68%.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964

 

Raw Data vs Adjusted Data:

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/santa_rosa-nm-data-comparison.png

 

More on the data above:

How not to measure temperature, part 79 - could you, would you, with a boat? Watts Up With That?

 

So why adjust the temperature upwards from the N.M example?

 

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. :hihi:

They mean hundreds. And the persons who are really interested in the 'science' should be directing these kinds of questions towards the people supplying the data. Oh wait. They have been. Good thing too or we would still believe the October Russian data was science.

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

And you have not responded to anything but the analogy portion of one post. I wasnt even going to respond to the previous non-response. Should have gone with my first thought. Wont happen again.

[Essay]

And you have not responded to anything but the analogy portion of one post. I wasnt even going to respond to the previous non-response.

Having to reply to Wattsup... is why I'm glad i didn't get into that can-of-worms.

 

I guess I don't worry too much about the temp. records because all one needs to do is observe the signs.

Treelines moving north (or up the sides of mountains), changing species distributions, population fluctuations due to heating effects, unprecedented melting of the tundra and glaciers, and melting of the Arctic and Antarctic....

 

Maybe you can question the magnitude of the temperature change, but not the direction.

===

 

But I'm glad we finally got all that CO2 science explained; though....

 

Your language, Cedars, seems to indicate that you don't think societies can change our environment; that natural forcers predominate. UHI's aside--as one example, what about acid rain and the ozone hole--as examples of rapid change? What about deforestation and desertification; haven't those have been affecting climate for millennia?

 

Surely CO2 is recognizable now as a significant forcer.

 

~ :)

[Cedars]

Having to reply to Wattsup... is why I'm glad i didn't get into that can-of-worms.

 

I guess I don't worry too much about the temp. records because all one needs to do is observe the signs.

Treelines moving north (or up the sides of mountains), ...

Because I dont have much time:

 

From the conclusion:

Tree-line positions similar to or slightly above the 1980 tree-line are established for the time periods approx. 1000 to 640 b.c. and a.d. 1 to 330 respectively. For the time period

between approx. 7100 and 2100 b.c. the dendrochronologically analysed logs show nearly continuous evidence of a tree-line above the 1980s limit. Very high elevation of the

tree-line, between 120 and 165 m above the 1980s level (2245 m a.s.l.) and even higher than the a.d. 2000 treespecies-line (2370 m a.s.l.), are recorded for the periods

7090–6570, 6040–5850, 5720–5620, 5500–4370 b.c., approx. 3510–3350 b.c. and 2790–2590 b.c.

 

Additionally, a tree-line which was located at least 50 m above the 1980s limit can be shown for the periods 6700–5430, 4920–3350 and 3280–2110 b.c. The dendrochronological record from the Kauner valley, showing high and very high tree-line

positions between approx. 7100 and 2100 b.c. with only two gaps (around 6490 b.c. and from 3350 to 3280 b.c.), suggests that summer temperatures as observed in the late

20th century were at the normal or the lower limit of the temperature range which can be assumed for long periods of the early and middle Holocene epoch.

 

http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2005/VegHisArchbNicolussi/2005VegetHistArchaeobotNicolussi.pdf

[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).

 

Nice response to my post, Cedars. I expect no less from you. :hihi:

 

While you have continued to stand firm on what you consider a preponderance of flawed or manipulated data points, you have still neglected to repond to my questions about how you think we should move forward with our energy usage.

 

Also, I find it interesting that on one hand you seem to acknowledge that the planet is warming as in the statement you made above. It is a bit vague though. It's kind of like someone asking, "Why does the sun rise in the East?"

"Because it's SUPPOSED to."

There's always a reason why the Earth warms and cools naturally. If the Earth is warming naturally now, and it isn't anything humans are contributing to, what then does the evidence show to be the reason? Stopping at "it's supposed to" isn't really satisfying scientifically. Wouldn't you agree?

 

On the other hand, if you acknowledge that the Earth is warming as you did above, and the temperature data denotes a warming trend, how do you then arrive at the conclusion that the temperature readings are distorted. It's almost as if you are saying here that the false temperature readings are implying a temperature increase that is not actually occurring, while simultaneously saying that we should not be shocked by the natural interglacial warming period we are currently experiencing.

 

Do you think there is warming occurring? And if so, what natural influences do you think are causing it?

 

 

BTW, if it were to be proven that Babe Ruth's stats were falsified somehow, it would definitely alter my belief about him. But that would require some pretty conclusive evidence under the circumstances. I still think for the most part the analogy works when it comes to how people use selective information to reinforce their beliefs, though. Don't forget, many people don't believe in climate change for no other reason than the fact that Rush Limbaugh doesn't. :)

[Essay]

From the conclusion:

Tree-line positions similar to or slightly above the 1980 tree-line are established for the time periods approx. 1000 to 640 b.c. and a.d. 1 to 330 ....

http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/2005/VegHisArchbNicolussi/2005VegetHistArchaeobotNicolussi.pdf

Great link. Thanks for pointing to some real science.

===

 

...from a different version of the same paper....

Holocene tree-line variability in the Kauner Valley, Central Eastern Alps, indicated by dendrochronological analysis of living trees and subfossil logs

In the first half of the 19th century the tree-line was located at about 2180 m a.s.l. in the innermost Kauner valley. After approximately A.D. 1860 the altitude of the upper limit of the occurrence of Pinus cembra individuals (tree-species-line) and, being closely linked, also that of the tree-line both rose. The current tree-line (trees >2 m) is located at 2245 m a.s.l. due to climatic conditions around 1980. Additionally we observed saplings up to a present (A.D. 2000) tree-species-line at approx. 2370 m a.s.l. The dendrochronologically analysed subfossil logs found at up to 2410 m a.s.l. date from within the last 9000 years (between approx. 7100 B.C. and A.D. 1700).

Wow! So already (2000) the new treeline is just a few tens of meters (40) below the Holocene maximum.

That's up 125 meters in just 20 years! Yikes!

 

They indicate that the treeline rose only 65 meters between the Little Ice Age and 1980.

 

That big change during the last 20 years (up to 2000) really points out the rapidity of the climate change.

This is one of the main indicators of "anthropogenicity" in the climate signal (according to AGW wisdom).

 

...just wait 'till we see the signal from all the "record breaking years" coming after 2000.

 

~ :)

[Flying Binghi]

I smell straw :hihi:

 

Question - do trees adapt to different temperatures over time ? ....:)

[Essay]

Yea, and I smell burning wood. Somebody must be thinking too hard, FB.

...and the Alps were 5-10 meters lower back at the Holo Max.

 

...I'm sure trees adapt and evolve just like animals and plants adapt (though the trees' long lifespan would probably make this a slower process); but as with other plants and animals, very rapid climate change makes it that much more difficult to adapt.

Also, a lot of trees are just clones. ...sounds like an interesting 'nother topic.

===

 

I knew I shouldn't have included that parenthetical remark about mountain treelines, but....

 

Cedars did motivate me to do a bit of research.

There have always been questions about tree-growth data being used as a climate proxy.

Here's another reason to treat most tree data gingerly:

Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 18, GB3021, doi:10.1029/2004GB002249.

Thresholds for warming-induced growth decline at elevational tree line in the Yukon Territory, Canada

A few tree ring studies indicate recent growth declines at northern latitudes. The precise causes are not well understood. Here we identify a temperature threshold for decline in a tree ring record from a well-established temperature-sensitive site at elevational tree line in northwestern Canada. The positive ring width/temperature relationship has weakened such that a pre-1965 linear model systematically overpredicts tree ring widths from 1965 to 1999. A nonlinear model shows an inverted U-shaped relationship between this chronology and summer temperatures, with an optimal July–August average temperature of 11.3°C based on a nearby station. This optimal value has been consistently exceeded since the 1960s, and the concurrent decline demonstrates that even at tree line, trees can be negatively affected when temperatures warm beyond a physiological threshold. If warming continues without significant gains in effective precipitation, the large-scale greening of recent decades could be replaced by large-scale browning. Such browning could slow or reverse carbon uptake by northern forests.

..."if" "could" ...what a bunch of pessimists.

 

~

[Cedars]

While you have continued to stand firm on what you consider a preponderance of flawed or manipulated data points, you have still neglected to repond to my questions about how you think we should move forward with our energy usage.

This thread is about global warming, and the question of the 'settled science'.

 

Also, I find it interesting that on one hand you seem to acknowledge that the planet is warming as in the statement you made above. It is a bit vague though. It's kind of like someone asking, "Why does the sun rise in the East?"

"Because it's SUPPOSED to."

If the sun stops rising in the east, it will signal a different problem for a different thread. Fact is between ice ages the earth warms.

 

There's always a reason why the Earth warms and cools naturally. If the Earth is warming naturally now, and it isn't anything humans are contributing to, what then does the evidence show to be the reason?

 

On the other hand, if you acknowledge that the Earth is warming as you did above, and the temperature data denotes a warming trend, how do you then arrive at the conclusion that the temperature readings are distorted. It's almost as if you are saying here that the false temperature readings are implying a temperature increase that is not actually occurring, while simultaneously saying that we should not be shocked by the natural interglacial warming period we are currently experiencing.

 

Do you think there is warming occurring? And if so, what natural influences do you think are causing it?

Ya know what, until you can answer what caused all the other warmings/coolings that have occured since the end of the last ice age (obviously not fossil fuel burning) you shouldnt leap off the ledge at the suggestion that "this time its different!!" Note I am not asking you to explain every warming cooling in the billions of years since, well since the sun started rising in the east :confused:. I am confining it to the last 10-12K years.

 

BTW, if it were to be proven that Babe Ruth's stats were falsified somehow, it would definitely alter my belief about him. But that would require some pretty conclusive evidence under the circumstances. I still think for the most part the analogy works when it comes to how people use selective information to reinforce their beliefs, though. Don't forget, many people don't believe in climate change for no other reason than the fact that Rush Limbaugh doesn't. :)

OK. I will assume you didnt read links posted in response to others. So I will repost them:

But it continues to get stranger. There are 4 different people reporting these kinds of things.

From April 2008:

On average 20% of the historical record was modified 16 times in the last 2 1/2 years. The largest single jump was 0.27 C. This occurred between the Oct 13, 2006 and Jan 15, 2007 records when Aug 2006 changed from an anomoly of +0.43C to +0.70C, a change of nearly 68%.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2964

 

Raw Data vs Adjusted Data:

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...comparison.png

 

More on the data above:

How not to measure temperature, part 79 - could you, would you, with a boat? Watts Up With That?

 

So why adjust the temperature upwards from the N.M example?

Note the New Mexico example. Now the skeptic sites agree that some adjustments are needed. But the RAW data shows a decline in temps. The adjusted data flips this around so now it appears to be a slight increase.

 

The climate audit info is also bizarre.

 

And finally a reference skipped over as though it was never posted (note posted prior to the babe ruth analogy):

 

Once again, here's what they were deleting and what they felt was "inappropriate" to show the public - the post-1960 decline in the Briffa index. (I've shown the IPCC TAR version here but the same deletion is made in AR4). By deleting the adverse segments, they enhance the rhetorical impression of the remaining series. Any mining promoter that did this would be in trouble with the securities commissions.

Original link:

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

 

It is your babe ruth analogy! Often (most of the time) it is one whistleblower who reveals a large amount of corruption, corruption with or without intent by the perpetrators.

 

As far as Rush Limbaugh. I cannot speak for those who listen to and follow him. I couldnt tell you whether most of the people who disagree with AGW do so because of Rush's opinion on this matter. I dont listen to Rush.

[InfiniteNow]

So, if I understand correctly, you are basically now arguing that because the data has been corrected we should consider it to be less accurate?

[Cedars]

Cedars did motivate me to do a bit of research.

There have always been questions about tree-growth data being used as a climate proxy.

Here's another reason to treat most tree data gingerly:

..."if" "could" ...what a bunch of pessimists.

 

~ :)

 

My link wasnt about tree growth data being used as a climate proxy. They confirmed the tree age (when possible) via C-14. The link was simply about the treelines having been much higher up, and for very long periods of time. This has been documented in N. America also. Whole forests types have come, gone, and come again via shifting climates long before H. Ford built the model t.

[Flying Binghi]

Whole forests types have come, gone, and come again via shifting climates long before H. Ford built the model t.

 

Yes, i had that shown to me on a tourist river cruise years ago. Traveling up the Gordon river (Tasmainia, Oz) i was enthralled by the, to me, ancient trees - looked as though the place had been like that since time started.... *** over the tour boat loud speaker comes "ten thousand years ago this was all ice" ***

 

A picture of simular bush - http://www.photoseek.com/04AUS-40007-Nelson-River.jpg

 

Some history -

SURVIVING AN ICE AGE: THE ZOOARCHAEOLOGICAL RECORD FROM SOUTHWESTERN TASMANIA -- GARVEY 22 (6): 583 -- PALAIOS

[Essay]

My link wasnt about tree growth data being used as a climate proxy. They confirmed the tree age (when possible) via C-14. The link was simply about the treelines having been much higher up, and for very long periods of time. This has been documented in N. America also. Whole forests types have come, gone, and come again via shifting climates long before H. Ford built the model t.

Nobody's arguing with this--these natural long-term trends. It's rapid (as with a meteor or volcano) changes that are the problem.

===

 

Those warm local temperatures were concurrent with a robust polar cap. Treelines tell us about summertime highs (not winter highs). Well, that's another story too. Mainly....

 

The temperature ranges indicated by that article match very closely with the global concensus on Holocene temperatures:

Yep, warmer from 7000-2000 years ago... just like the paper says.

This follows the typical shape for any interglacial period, except for the very recent past--suddenly we're off the scale (relatively)--certainly out of the regular pattern for an interglacial.

Of course, now we're even farther above that "2004" arrow on the left.

===

 

I am familiar with the Holocene temperatures, but I thought the rapidity with which the treeline was now climbing (since 1980) was the most dramatic gleaning from that paper.

 

If that rate keeps up for another ten years, the new treeline will have exceeded the highest Holocene treeline from the past 9000 years.

 

I got your point, and the literature backs it up too. Do you get my point?

...or any of my previous questions... or points not in parentheses?

 

~ :)

[Flying Binghi]

Essay, has that temp variations graph been through a Climate Audit yet ? http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5054

 

I have to admit, after all the false claims, i dont trust any thing put out by (some) climate scientists (?) until it has been audited.

[Essay]

Essay, has that temp variations graph been through a Climate Audit yet ? http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5054

I'm sure they wouldn't pass up a chance to point out any flaws in such a widely published chart--a compilation of peer-reviewed research.

 

But I don't know if it's been vetted by the bloggers yet. Let me know what you find out.

 

Thanks,

~ :)

 

p.s. This was not to make any "claim," but only included as it "backed up" the treeline research that Cedars had already presented.

[Flying Binghi]

a compilation of peer-reviewed research.

 

i dunno, to me, peer review dont seem to count for much when it comes to climate science :confused:

 

Perhaps we need a Climate Audit approved stamp for AGW related research :evil:

 

....any way, i've been trying to escape the forums for a few weeks/months, so will leave the AGW hampster wheel for now

[Essay]

I dunno....

Yes, it's sad.... :confused:

 

Perhaps we need a Climate Audit approved stamp for AGW related research

You're esentially calling for a peer-review process here; but just by your peers, it seems (though the folks at climateaudit might object to that characterization).

 

~ :evil: