Just Temperature

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 3:19 PM GMT on March 25, 2012

Share this Blog
16
+

Just Temperature:

The U.S. has just experienced an intense heat event with many records falling in the eastern half of the U.S. Here is Chris Burt’s post on the historic event. There is an excellent discussion of this event and its relation to a warming climate by Andrew Freedman at Climate Central. (Global Warming May Have Fueled March Heat Odds) I have a talk to give next week, and I am sure that the heat will contribute to questions. A question that has been put to me frequently in the past weeks is that should we expect such high temperatures in the future?

Usually when I talk about evidence of a warming, I talk about coherent and convergent evidence. That is, one can’t just look at the global surface temperature data and state that the planet has warmed. But if you look at the surface temperature data along with many other sources of data, then one finds that the evidence of warming is overwhelming. If you add the impacts of this warming to ecosystems, for example, the observations that spring is coming earlier over most of the land area in the Northern Hemisphere, then the evidence becomes smothering. For me and many others this evidence of warming is convincing, but it relies on pulling together information from many sources, explaining their relationships, and presentation of the information. So as people have asked me about the heat in Michigan and Maine this past week, I have thought of what I could do with just temperature. Here is the thread that I put together.

The last month when the global mean monthly average was below the 20th century average was February 1985. Here is a picture of the difference from the 100 year average of temperature data from each February. It has been 324 months since there was a month below the global average temperature. (Not 324 Februarys, 324 consecutive months.) Looking at the graph, the Southern Hemisphere, which is dominated by the ocean, goes back into the 1970s. There have been Februarys in the Northern Hemisphere with little blips below average.



Figure 1: February monthly difference from a 20th century average of all Februarys. From the National Climatic Data Center.

The average in this figure is based on the entire 20th century. Therefore, if you look at the record during the 20th century, there is a balance between the warm and the cold months. This fact comes directly from the definition of calculating the differences from an average. There is a famous 1930s warm period. This warm period is present in the February time series, but compared with a later span centered around 1960, this period in not as intense. A prominent characteristic of the graph is that on the left, in the first part of the 20th century, it is cooler than the average and on the right, the here and now, it is warmer.

To go along with the February graph, I have placed the graph from August 2011. The main part of the story, that in 1900 it was cooler than in 2000 remains the same. Here, in the Northern Hemisphere summer, the 1930s warm period is more prominent and more global than in February. In is easy to conclude from this figure that the spatial extent and the temporal persistent of the current warming are both far larger than in the spurt of warmth of the 1930s.



Figure 2: August monthly difference from a 20th century average of all Augusts. From the National Climatic Data Center.


I started this article with the question is the current heat event in the U.S. what we can expect in the future? Taking this simple argument, looking at the average for the past, almost 30 years, it seems reasonable to expect it be warm. And given, the relentless increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we should expect it to be warmer in the future. To expect otherwise would be betting against the average.

Betting against the average – the next plot, Figure 3, is adapted from a 2009 paper by Jerry Meehl and a host of other authors. (Original Paper, Paper Discussion from NCAR ) What this figure shows, for the U.S., is the number of new record highs divided by the number of record lows – the ratio of highs to lows. In a simplistic, intuitive way, if the average temperature where staying the same, then one would expect the number of new record highs and the number of new record lows to be about the same. What is seen in the figure is as we go from the 1980s to the 1990s to the 2000s, there is trend of record highs out numbering record lows by a factor of 2 to 1. Comparing this with Figures 1 and 2, this evolution of new record highs outpacing new record lows occurs during the time when there has not been a month below the global 20th century average.



Figure 3: Adapted from Meehl et al. (2009) the ratio of U.S. record highs and record lows by decade.

The next figure I show is another version of the global difference figure. This one is calculated as differences from 1950 onwards in order to overlap with the data from the Climate Prediction Center that identify El Nino and La Nina Cycles. El Nino and La Nina are names given to frequently occurring patterns of variation that are concentrated in the tropical Pacific Ocean, but that change the average temperature of Earth for about a year. When there is an El Nino then the globe is warmer and when there is a La Nina the globe is cooler.



Figure 4: Global temperature differences with El Nino (warm) and La Nina (cool) years marked. From National Climatic Data Center.

Looking first at the La Nina years, 1985, the last year when the Earth was cooler that the 20th century average was a La Nina year. One could say that this was the last year when the variation associated with La Nina was strong enough to counter the warming trend enough for the Earth to appear “cool.” What is striking is that the La Nina years in the past three decades are systematically warming. This suggests that in the La Nina cool period, we are seeing a warmer and warmer background, average, temperature evolving.

The warm phase of this variation does not paint as easy a picture. The very strong 1997-1998 El Nino famously raised the Earth’s temperature to a point that many argue was the warmest year observed. The subsequent El Nino events are not as strong as the 1997-1998 El Nino, and each one has temperature maximum that flirts with the 1998 maximum. It is important to note that in 1998 the entire positive anomaly of temperature was not due to the presence of El Nino. The El Nino events take place on a background of increasing temperature, and each event is a burst towards new historic highs in temperature. It is useful to look back earlier in the graph, say 1970 and earlier, to get an idea of the size of variation that can be associated with El Nino and La Nina.

Returning again to the question posed in the beginning, can we expect to regularly see such warm temperatures going forward? Yes, it makes sense that we will see more and more record high temperatures. To not expect that is to bet against the emerging observed trend of warmer and warmer temperatures that is a metric of the warming climate.

I will finish this just temperature story with a map of the Plant Hardiness Zones. Here is the official version from the US Department of Agriculture with an service that lets you pick out your zip code. I show a map of Michigan. In 1990 the green zones, 6, were down around the Ohio River in southern Ohio. This is a measure of not only warming, but also of the definitive changes in the onset of spring. The Washington Post has an excellent graphic that shows the changes between 1990 and 2012.



Figure 5: Plant hardiness zones in Michigan for 2012. From US Department of Agriculture.

We have just experienced in the U.S. a record extreme heat event. This raises the natural questions of climate, weather, and climate change. I have linked a couple of excellent discussions of these issues in the opening paragraph. What I have done in my article is to focus simply on temperature. I have laid out a thread that starts from the globe and the remarkable observation that we have not seen a month below the 20th century global average in more than 25 years. This I followed with the observation that we are in a time when we are setting more than twice as many record highs as record lows. After that I discussed the role of one of the most prominent forms of planetary temperature variations, El Nino and La Nina. The compelling point from this graph was that in the past 30 years during the cool phase, La Nina, the planet shows a warming trend. Finally, I introduce the plant hardiness zones, which show warmer winters, and can be translated to earlier springs. So the question that has been posed to me last week, can we expect such high temperatures in the future? Yes. If we use our experience and observations for the basis of decision making, then the rational answer is yes. We will see more records. We will see an earlier spring. We will see warmer times.


r


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 332 - 282

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Quoting Snowlover123:


PIOMAS is a model cyclonebuster, not actual observations.


Computer models are very accurate perhaps more so than actual observations these days. So what's your point?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:

Still not massive meaning we are walking on thin ice.




This prevents





that.............


PIOMAS is a model cyclonebuster, not actual observations.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thus the Oceans are to hot and so the ice is melting from above and below.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Still not massive meaning we are walking on thin ice.




This prevents





that.............
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NeapolitanFan:


Not according to this chart.

That's why I used the term "area", and not "extent"; they're two different measurements, of course. But even keeping that in mind, it's hard to make the case that there's some "recovery" going on when even extent is slightly less than it was on this same date way back two years ago. ;-)

(As has been noted many times in both this forum and others, the "excess" area and extent observed this year is primarily ice that's extremely thin and fragile; experts expect a record level of melting over the next five months or so.)

I stand by my prediction: the Arctic will have at least one officially "ice free" day by September of 2016.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13465
Quoting Neapolitan:
Thank God that ice is there, for the rest of the Arctic is way below normal--and dropping at a record pace; nearly 450,000 square kilometers of ice area has vanished in just the past six days. (In fact, Arctic Sea ice area is nearly back to where it was on this date last year--and last year, if you'll recall, area set a new record minimum.)

Look at this mess in the Barentsz Sea:

Ice

Meanwhile, here's a new chart I just ran across. I call it "The Death Spiral".

Ouch


Not according to this chart.

Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting NeapolitanFan:
Check out Bering Sea Ice. Ouch!

Link
Thank God that ice is there, for the rest of the Arctic is way below normal--and dropping at a record pace; nearly 450,000 square kilometers of ice area has vanished in just the past six days. (In fact, Arctic Sea ice area is nearly back to where it was on this date last year--and last year, if you'll recall, area set a new record minimum.)

Look at this mess in the Barentsz Sea:

Ice

Meanwhile, here's a new chart I just ran across. I call it "The Death Spiral".

Ouch
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13465
This morning's sampling of climate change items in the media:

--Stripping CO2 from air requires largest industry ever For those clinging to the hope that technology will save us from ourselves, there's this wake-up call: to get rid of the 30 billion metric tons of CO2 we humans produce ever year would mean the creation of the largest industry ever.

--Warming Climate Reveals Links to Infectious Disease " Diarrhea, cholera and tick-borne illness: As the climate changes, a host of health threats are predicted to escalate, experts say. Environmental changes already underway are allowing public health experts to establish stronger links between global warming and infectious disease."

--How Murdoch's Aussie Papers Cover Climate Change If you rely on any of the Murdoch's "news" outlets--Fox, the Wall Street journal--for your science coverage, you're bieng lied to most egregiously.

--Past extreme warming events linked to massive carbon release from thawing permafrost It's probably going to be a lot worse--and happen much quicker--than we imagine.

--Global Warming Denialism 'Just Foolishness,' Scientist Peter Raven Says Institutionalized denialism in the United States will help China (for one) overtake America on the world stage (which is why I've predicted that some obvious liars will eventually be prosecuted for treason).

--Fox News Again Turns To Tabloid For Climate Science If you rely on any of the Murdoch's "news" outlets--Fox, the Wall Street journal--for your science coverage, you're bieng lied to most egregiously. Oh, wait; we already said that above, didn't we?

--Tornado risk is growing and spreading, study shows "It's not just the "Tornado Alley" any more. Tornadoes are striking in more parts of the U.S., more often, a new study shows. Experts are enlarging the area of the U.S. they believe is regularly in the path of severe storms, tornadoes, and hail damage, according to a report from CoreLogic. Tornadoes and the storms that generate them account for 57% of insured catastrophic losses in the U.S. each year. New analysis by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association shows that these storms are probably increasing in frequency, and the region of the country where they strike is growing as well."

--Huffing and puffing "Climate change deniers used to ask, 'Where’s the evidence of change?' This was the trump card in their thin deck. 'Where’s the evidence of change? If the climate were warming, we’d see evidence of it by now. Where’s the evidence?' This is what they said. Go back and look. They represented the question as telling. Now the evidence is in. And everywhere. And ferocious. And what do the deniers say now? 'Climate changes all the time, all by itself!'"

--Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection To those who repeatedly claim that climate predictions are always wrong, here's yet further proof that, no, they weren't wrong--and, in fact, almost always seemed to have underestimated the amount of warming that would take place.

--The Future is Now for Sea Level Rise in South Florida This one is of special concern to me, since I live in South Florida--though anyone who either lives here, visits here, or has relatives here should also be concerned. And that's probably 85% of all Americans.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13465
Check out Bering Sea Ice. Ouch!

Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Quoting swampdooogggg:

Wrong on all accounts.

Again, it's there for the taking. Snowlover has disproved several of your claims--backed by no scientific evidence, by the way--and still you sit back afraid of losing your credibility by responding to him.

Buk buk buk buk bukkaaaa
You've proven my point. To my lonely ignore list, silly, wasteful troll. ;-)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13465
.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting swampdooogggg:
Neapolitan. Care to jump into the ring. I've seen and heard Birthmark all day. I'd like to see you. And no, ad hominems don't count.

Buk buk buk buk bukkaaaa
Lemme get this right. A 1) banned user 2) creates yet another handle to come into this forum to 3) insult the very capable Birthmark, 4) call me a chicken in the most childish way possible, then 5) tell me to avoid ad hominems? I have to wonder where some people get their personal Rules of the Road. A box of Cracker Jack, maybe? ;-)

Nah, your fifth-grade taunt notwithstanding, I'm rather enjoying the spectacle of watching Birthmark handily return each of Snowlover's "skeptical" lobs with a solid scientific backhand. I suggest you watch; you may just learn something.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13465
Quoting Birthmark:
<
Whoa up there! Are you saying that the TSI is decreasing? In post #201 you quoted S&W 2008: "We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature, depending on the TSI reconstruction used." So, which is it? Is TSI increasing or decreasing?


TSI increased from the 1980s to the early 2000s, and it has dropped slightly since the early 2000s. I was saying if it decreases in the future, then we could see some climatic cooling take shape.

Quoting Birthmark:

That means that every reconstruction --indeed every statement-- about paleoclimate is either dead wrong or a lucky guess.


If we didn't know how GHGs impacted the climate, that means that the temperature proxies are somehow flawed?

We know GHGs cause warming. The fact of the matter that the diurnal temperature has not decreased in the best sited weather stations, indicates that they are not the driver of recent climate change. There is a difference between not having an effect and not a driver.

CO2 never lead temperature (despite what one recent study proclaims to suggest) it follows temperature, because of the large lag time between temperature increases and CO2 releases from the temperature changes of the ocean.

Quoting Birthmark:

This should do you.


It says the content is temporarily unavailable.

Quoting Birthmark:

It does when you use Scafetta's nonsense...which is a pretty good indication that he was wrong. It also neatly explains why only blog whining is coming Scafetta on this one.


How is it nonsense? How can the sensitivity parameter go down for TSI when TSI increases over the same timeframe?

Quoting Birthmark:

I guess Scafetta gave up after only being able to show the temperature fell outside a 1-sigma range, not the 2-sigma that is generally used. IOW, he showed nothing.


Provide support that the 2-Sigma range is generally used instead of a 1 sigma range.

Quoting Birthmark:

Your critiques of SkS is without foundation and amount to nothing more than wishful thinking.


So you're not going to address my critiques then.

I see.

Quoting Birthmark:

Coincidence? No. That's the purpose of cherry-picking.


400+ weather stations is not cherry picking and not a coincidence. The rest of the stations did not meet the requirements for this experiment.

Quoting Birthmark:

This is the kind of stuff that can lead one to question your "skepticism." Here you are posting link after link to new (and unconfirmed) papers and blog posts in support of something else besides CO2 being the primary culprit in the current warming.


I bring those papers to discussion to highlight the possible uncertainties in AGW and to bring these papers up for discussion.

Quoting Birthmark:

In some areas, that's true. However, that's not the case in a wide variety of areas. It seems like the only thing you are certain of is that the primary cause can't be CO2.


Where did I say the primary cause can't be CO2? I'm saying there's enough uncertainty where you cannot make definitive statements that CO2 is the driver of the warming over the last 50 years.


Quoting Birthmark:

Where's your evidence that any "extra energy" is arriving in the tropics? If it's that Pinker paper...well, there are other possible explanations for their findings besides the Sun actually brightening. Aerosols come to mind.


The Pinker et. al and Wild et. al papers both document an overall increase in TSI reaching Earth's surface, which would include the Tropics.

Daresay, how do aerosoles cause an increase in TSI at Earth's Surface if they reflect solar radiation?

Their results show such a strong trend in TSI reaching Earth's Surface, that I think that some solar feedbacks are occuring, where the Cloud Cover is decreasing in response to Solar warming. The Cloud Cover and TSI link is well established.

Now here you're trying to find anything else other than the sun being the cause of the warming.

Quoting Birthmark:

Here is a map of the polar anomalies during Nov-Apr:


That's a poor timeframe to choose, because it combines parts of NH Spring and Winter, so it's not a good sample if "temperatures are increasing during the coldest months where the sun isn't visible" and my graph would be more suitable to show trends occuring in the Arctic.

Your GISS links do not work, and GISS does not have data in the Arctic or Antarctic. they extrapolate data from nearby stations over parts of the Arctic where they have no data.

These too are not accurate observations.

Quoting Birthmark:

Nothing aside from the fact that there is no observational support of any merit, no historical support of any merit, didn't stop previous episodes of warming and cooling, and maybe eight or ten other reasons. In short, it's silly.


I see.

Can you provide evidence for these claims?

Thank you.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
<
Quoting Snowlover123:
Well that's what they did. There's no other way around a circular conclusion.

No, it's not. But it appears that discussion of this is played out. In the event that any such criticism appears in the peer-reviewed, reputable science literature don't hesitate to let me know.

Quoting Snowlover123:
If the sun is inactive for a longer period of time, and if the TSI decreases even further, we may see some cooling going on. The anthropogenic forcing cannot be ignored, however, even though the climate is insensitive to the anthropogenic GHG forcing and is sensitive to solar variability.

Whoa up there! Are you saying that the TSI is decreasing? In post #201 you quoted S&W 2008: "We estimate that the Sun could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth’s average temperature, depending on the TSI reconstruction used." So, which is it? Is TSI increasing or decreasing?

Quoting Snowlover123:
How so?

If we don't know the effects of GHGs in our current climate, then we don't know the effects in prior history. That means that every reconstruction --indeed every statement-- about paleoclimate is either dead wrong or a lucky guess. Facts do not exist in a vacuum in science. Scientific facts have to not only explain what you are observing, they have to fit in with other science facts. We can't have "laboratory effects" of CO2 and "real world effects of CO2" unless we have a pretty thorough and convincing explanation of why. In this case, no such explanation exists, nor is one needed.

Quoting Snowlover123:
You're going to have to provide evidence for this claim that scientists knew that "do you think human activity is a significant contriutor to Global Warming?" means "Do you think GHGs are the primary (x>50%) factor in Global Warming?"


This should do you.

Quoting Snowlover123:
I'm not sure, actually. Scafetta's analysis is definitely compelling that there are some flawed components to Benestad and Schmidt 2009.

It might be compelling to you, but it is not to me. It probably isn't very compelling to Scafetta, either, since he hasn't seen fit to subject his criticisms to peer-review.

Quoting Snowlover123:
The sensitivity parameter to TSI would not go down if TSI goes up, regardless of what parameters are chosen.

It does when you use Scafetta's nonsense...which is a pretty good indication that he was wrong. It also neatly explains why only blog whining is coming Scafetta on this one.

Quoting Snowlover123:
The widget shows the Globally averaged temperature falling out of the IPCC confidence range. This has been published in peer review, and it has significant implications if it is correct. It means that the IPCC attributation may be off, which of course has significant implications for the scientific community in the field of Climate Change.


What it shows is that if you play with statistics enough, that you can say anything you want to say, no matter how ridiculous. I guess Scafetta gave up after only being able to show the temperature fell outside a 1-sigma range, not the 2-sigma that is generally used. IOW, he showed nothing.

Your critiques of SkS is without foundation and amount to nothing more than wishful thinking.

Quoting Snowlover123:
So it's simply a coincidence that hundreds of weather stations with the same population concentration display the same trend?

Coincidence? No. That's the purpose of cherry-picking.

Quoting Snowlover123:
And this may be another product of the atmospheric circulation changes from the ozone hole that recently developed in Antarctica. You can't use this as evidence of a CO2 effect on Antarctica, when the causes are unknown. It might not even be legitimate, considering that the so-called warming over Antarctica is evidenced by a re-analysis, which is NOT actual observations.

This is the kind of stuff that can lead one to question your "skepticism." Here you are posting link after link to new (and unconfirmed) papers and blog posts in support of something else besides CO2 being the primary culprit in the current warming. Then when you come up against a piece of established non-controversial science that is well-supported in peer-review, you dismiss it with nothing but speculation and appeal to the unknown.

You might want to work on that if you really want to be a skeptic and especially if you want to be a scientist --a good one, anyway.


Quoting Snowlover123:
Uncertainty surrounding climate science is still very high.

In some areas, that's true. However, that's not the case in a wide variety of areas. It seems like the only thing you are certain of is that the primary cause can't be CO2.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Where's your evidence that the extra energy being received at the tropical surface is not being transferred all throughout the globe, so that little temperature change occurs at the Tropics?

Where's your evidence that any "extra energy" is arriving in the tropics? If it's that Pinker paper...well, there are other possible explanations for their findings besides the Sun actually brightening. Aerosols come to mind.

Quoting Snowlover123:
The polar temperatures in the Arctic (Antarctic I have already discussed) aren't increasing the fastest during the winter months.

Here is what I said: "The albedo of the high latitudes in winter doesn't matter. Yet they are displaying some of their most dramatic warming in months when the Sun isn't visible." So I didn't claim that "polar temperatures in the Arctic" were increasing fastest in the winter.

Here is a map of the polar anomalies during Nov-Apr:

Link

This map covers the winter and early spring in the Northern Hemisphere. You'll not that the anomaly in the high northern latitudes is very warm. That is impossible if the Sun is the primary cause. But it is exactly what was expected if CO2 is the culprit.

Further, you'll note that the Antarctic didn't warm very much at all even though this map covers SH summer. This is not at all what it should look like if the Sun is the cause. Again, it is exactly what was predicted if CO2 was the primary cause.

Score, GHGs 2; Sun 0

Here is a map the polar anomalies during May-Oct:

Link
Here we see that in the time-frame that includes NH summer, the high latitudes are indeed warming, but the anomaly isn't as great as the winter anomaly.

In the Antarctic we see some warming and a fair amount of cooling, even though it's winter occurs during this time period. Again, in good agreement with predictions of what we'd expect in the Antarctic.

Final score - GHGs 4, the Sun 0.

Quoting Snowlover123:
What's wrong with Lindzen's Iris hypothesis?

Nothing aside from the fact that there is no observational support of any merit, no historical support of any merit, didn't stop previous episodes of warming and cooling, and maybe eight or ten other reasons. In short, it's silly.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Birthmark:
That is an assertion that I've seen only on blogs. Again I ask, if you have a link to a peer-reviewed rebuttal I'll be most grateful. Until then I have to view such an assertion as unsubstantiated. No other way to work


Well that's what they did. There's no other way around a circular conclusion.

Quoting Birthmark:

That's the very year that I predicted that we'd see an ice-free Arctic. Barring asteroid impact, volcanoes, nuclear war, etc., I'm pretty sure that I'll be much, much closer to correct than your friend.


The Arctic being close to normal levels right now is deceiving. The ice is in terrible shape right now, because a lot of the thicker ice was flushed out of the Arctic Circle because of a stronger Beaufort Gyre and a strong +AO that stayed in the Arctic for the majority of this winter. If we had a -AO through most of the Arctic winter, that would definitely have helped the ice, but I'm thinking this summer is definitely going to have some big melting going on in the Arctic. Probably close to 2009 or 2008 standards.

I don't think that the Arctic will see ice free coniditions by 2017 though... that seems a little bit extreme, considering it's only 5 years away.

We could see a few more record low extents in the Arctic before the AMO regime shifts to it's negative state. Once that happens, I think extent should increase until the AMO shifts to it's positive state. Chylek et. al clearly demonstrated a multidecadal correlation between the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and Arctic Temperatures.

Quoting Paper:

Understanding Arctic temperature variability is essential for assessing possible future melting of the Greenland ice sheet, Arctic sea ice and Arctic permafrost. Temperature trend reversals in 1940 and 1970 separate two Arctic warming periods (1910–1940 and 1970–2008) by a significant 1940–1970 cooling period. Analyzing temperature records of the Arctic meteorological stations we find that (a) the Arctic amplification (ratio of the Arctic to global temperature trends) is not a constant but varies in time on a multi-decadal time scale, (b) the Arctic warming from 1910–1940 proceeded at a significantly faster rate than the current 1970–2008 warming, and (c) the Arctic temperature changes are highly correlated with the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) suggesting the Atlantic Ocean thermohaline circulation is linked to the Arctic temperature variability on a multi-decadal time scale.

Quoting Birthmark:

Okay. Say the PDO/AMO behave exactly as you expect. What will keep the global temperature from plummeting as your friend suggests?


The PDO and AMO are oscillations as many have agreed here, and they cause cyclical changes in Earth's temperature through a change in Cloud Cover. Changing indicies indicate changing weather patterns, since the PDO and AMO are indicies of the Global Weather Patterns.

If the sun is inactive for a longer period of time, and if the TSI decreases even further, we may see some cooling going on. The anthropogenic forcing cannot be ignored, however, even though the climate is insensitive to the anthropogenic GHG forcing and is sensitive to solar variability.

Quoting Birthmark:

But the fact is that they are not correct. If they were correct, then the climate of Earth is impossible to explain through a vast majority of its history.


How so?

It should be noted that the raw data showed a statistically significant INCREASE in the diurnal mean temperature, while adjusted, it shows no change for those weather stations.

Quoting Birthmark:

The wording may (or may not) be problematic, given the fact that they were questioning scientists in their area of expertise. It's unlikely that many were confused by the questions, so I stand by my "vast majority" statement until it can be refuted in the peer-reviewed reputable journals. Speaking of which, the overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed science agrees rather well with the results of the study.


You're going to have to provide evidence for this claim that scientists knew that "do you think human activity is a significant contriutor to Global Warming?" means "Do you think GHGs are the primary (x>50%) factor in Global Warming?"

Quoting Birthmark:

A better question is what's so wrong with it that Scarfetta won't submit it for peer-review? If he's really got the goods then he should publish. He hasn't to my knowledge.


I'm not sure, actually. Scafetta's analysis is definitely compelling that there are some flawed components to Benestad and Schmidt 2009.

Quoting Birthmark:

So I don't think it's saying what you think it's saying. Link to Benestad and Schmidt.


The sensitivity parameter to TSI would not go down if TSI goes up, regardless of what parameters are chosen.

Quoting Birthmark:

Bah! I'll bet you're a Virgo, aren't you? :^D


Nope, Cancer. It explains my love for crabbing :P

Quoting Birthmark:

Why should anyone care that a useless widget appears to show something? SkS pretty convincingly demonstrated that the widget fails very quickly when tested against historical values. So the chances are extremely high that Scafetta was just playing games with statistics to get the answer he wanted.


The widget shows the Globally averaged temperature falling out of the IPCC confidence range. This has been published in peer review, and it has significant implications if it is correct. It means that the IPCC attributation may be off, which of course has significant implications for the scientific community in the field of Climate Change.

You still have yet to address my critiques about the Skeptical Science link.

Quoting Birthmark:

Um, that's what he did...or rather he stopped just short of it and allowed you to make the final jump. Plausible deniability.


So it's simply a coincidence that hundreds of weather stations with the same population concentration display the same trend? It's just a coincidence that the higher the population density is, the higher the trend is? Over 400 weather stations demonstrating this same process is a coincidence?

I don't buy that.

Quoting Birthmark:

Didn't forget. It's just not that important. I can get cooling anywhere the Sun isn't shining. However, getting warming without the Sun is pretty difficult, don't you agree?


And this may be another product of the atmospheric circulation changes from the ozone hole that recently developed in Antarctica. You can't use this as evidence of a CO2 effect on Antarctica, when the causes are unknown. It might not even be legitimate, considering that the so-called warming over Antarctica is evidenced by a re-analysis, which is NOT actual observations. The fact that this reanalysis showing warming disagrees with the MSU observations casts some pretty serious doubt on the legitimacy of the re-analysis.

Quoting Birthmark:

Goodness gracious me! Do you think that uncertainty is limited to climate science?! If so, then please take this opportunity to disabuse yourself of that notion. All sciences are rife with uncertainty. It's one of science's strengths, and charms, imo


My point exactly.

Uncertainty surrounding climate science is still very high.

Quoting Birthmark:

Of course. But in order for that to happen, the tropics first have to warm. The tropics are not warming nearly fast enough to indicate that the Sun is involved.


I don't understand your thought process in this paragraph.

Where's your evidence that the extra energy being received at the tropical surface is not being transferred all throughout the globe, so that little temperature change occurs at the Tropics?

Wild et. al 2005 found that the dimming of the Earth's surface associated with Global Cooling until the 1980s switched to Global Brightening in the 1980s, and has brightened since then. This indicates a clear solar influence on Climate, with more radiation reaching Earth's surface since the 1980s. Solar feedbacks associated with decreasing Cloud Cover may also be responsible for this increase in TSI reaching Earth's Surface.

Variations in solar radiation incident at Earth's surface profoundly affect the human and terrestrial environment. A decline in solar radiation at land surfaces has become apparent in many observational records up to 1990, a phenomenon known as global dimming. Newly available surface observations from 1990 to the present, primarily from the Northern Hemisphere, show that the dimming did not persist into the 1990s. Instead, a widespread brightening has been observed since the late 1980s. This reversal is reconcilable with changes in cloudiness and atmospheric transmission and may substantially affect surface climate, the hydrological cycle, glaciers, and ecosystems.

Pinker et. al 2005 also found an increase in Solar radiation reaching Earth's Surface through Global satellite measurements. They found that from 1983 to 2001, the average irradiance reaching Earth's Surface INCREASED by 0.16 w/m^2 per year. This indicates that significant solar feedbacks from decreasing Cloud Cover are probably amplifying this increase in Solar Activity and irradiance.

Quoting Paper:

Long-term variations in solar radiation at Earth's surface (S) can affect our climate, the hydrological cycle, plant photosynthesis, and solar power. Sustained decreases in S have been widely reported from about the year 1960 to 1990. Here we present an estimate of global temporal variations in S by using the longest available satellite record. We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year; this change is a combination of a decrease until about 1990, followed by a sustained increase. The global-scale findings are consistent with recent independent satellite observations but differ in sign and magnitude from previously reported ground observations. Unlike ground stations, satellites can uniformly sample the entire globe.

So what's causing this increased Solar Irradiance reaching Earth's Surface?

Quoting Birthmark:

Now you're rationalizing. The albedo of the high latitudes in winter doesn't matter. Yet they are displaying some of their most dramatic warming in months when the Sun isn't visible.


The polar temperatures in the Arctic (Antarctic I have already discussed) aren't increasing the fastest during the winter months. They are increasing the fastest in the spring months due to increased and faster albedo decreases associated with rising temperatures.



Quoting Birthmark:

There have been many studies of clouds' effects on climate. They certainly play a part, but not a crucial one. And if you're shuffling towards Lindzen's iris hypothesis...well, I just hope that you're not since it's an abject failure.


What's wrong with Lindzen's Iris hypothesis?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting iceagecoming:


I am curious about the past, this illustrates either
Humanoid intervention (we did use fire a millions ybp)
or some rather large energy input especially 210-190 ybp for a 6 degree jump up and back down 8. Very likely solar, but I'll be open for any suggestions.


I noticed that the graphic was more than likely from a wordpress blogger and that they obtained this graphic from WUWT. Is there any accreditation that goes with this graphic?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting Snowlover123:


I think I accidentially hit one of my function keys... it really sucks when stuff like this happens, because then it's not as motivating to get back to your original response.

I will try and definitely get to your response, tomorrow, though.

Take as long as you need to respond...unless your response is "Al Gore is fat." 8^D
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Birthmark:

Don'tcha just love that. I've taken to doing the long posts in Notepad, saving them, and then C&Ping them. I've lost too many long posts to board quirks or my clicking the wrong thing.


I think I accidentially hit one of my function keys... it really sucks when stuff like this happens, because then it's not as motivating to get back to your original response.

I will try and definitely get to your response, tomorrow, though.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting iceagecoming:

"Your honor, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, all of the deaths in this town historically have been due to natural causes. Therefore, it is impossible for my client to have murdered the deceased in this case. Pay no attention to the knife in his chest. The deceased probably died before that happened. I rest my case."

Which way would you vote if you were on that jury, ice?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Xandra:

You dismiss research by scientist, for example Solanki who is a very knowledgeable scientist, and instead cherry-picking scientists that fit your "theory". Scientists, who have been proven wrong time after time after time, for example long wrong climate science disinformer Roy Spencer and long wrong Scafetta the widget man.


So quoting scientists who don't agree with your predetermined opinion makes me a denier? A denier of what? Quoting scientists who possibly cast doubt on the notion that Greenhouse Gases are not the primary driver of Climate Change makes me a denier? Solanki is a knowledgeable scientist. He's simply mistaken on this issue. Of course, I don't think I'll ever see you type up a response that praises any skeptical scientist, because that will make you a "denier" too won't it?

Quoting Xandra:

You are cherry-picking graphs that fit your theory. Poorly made graphs which one can see directly is not taken from a scientific paper, but instead created by some denier at some anti-science blog.


You have clearly not checked out any of my peer reviewed papers I posted. Point to me where the pictures I posted are not in the peer reviewed paper that I posted. Otherwise, you're just making baseless assumptions.

Quoting Xandra:

You give us links to paper which is only based on cloud cover over China or only 7 Spanish stations etc. Not global measurements.


And they are in line with the most accurate Cloud Cover satellite data that we have from ISSCP, all confirming a decrease in Cloud Cover over the last 30 years, suggesting an increase in Solar Activity, because of the remarkable correlation between direct solar activity variations and Cloud Cover changes, and the ACRIM composite could be validated.

Quoting paper:

To investigate whether galactic cosmic rays (GCR) may influence cloud cover variations, we analyze cloud cover anomalies from 1900–1987 over the United States. Results of spectral analyses reveal a statistically significant cloud cover signal at the period of 11 years; the coherence between cloud cover and solar variability proxy is 0.7 and statistically significant with 95% confidence. In addition, cloud data derived from the NCAR Climate System Model (CSM) forced with solar irradiance variations show a strong signal at 11 years that is not apparent in cloud data from runs with constant solar input. The cloud cover variations are in phase with the solar cycle and not the GCR. Our results suggest that cloud variabilities may be affected by a modulation of the atmospheric circulation resulting from variations of the solar‐UV‐ozone‐induced heating of the atmosphere.



The ISSCP Cloud measurements confirm a Global decrease in albedo.

Quoting Xandra:

You pick out a few sentences from a paper and make your own interpretation on that basis.


Isn't that what scientists do on a daily basis? By making hypotheses off of the evidence?

However, some things cannot be subject to one's interpretation, like a negatively sloped Cloud Cover change.


Quoting Xandra:

You say that I haven't read your links. I have done that but I am convinced, that you have not read what it says in the papers I and others have given you because these papers conflict with your pre-determined view.


No, you evidently have not, or else you wouldn't have made such blatantly false statements about the images like this one: "Poorly made graphs which one can see directly is not taken from a scientific paper."

Quoting Xandra:

Look at the image below. If the PMOD composite was correct, the data points should be clustered around the ideal (light blue) line. If ACRIM was correct, a second population should appear aligned along the dashed blue line. It shows no such second population.


Here you are assuming that Lockwood's proxy is correct, ahd therefore the one closest to the proxy has to be right.

Poor and circular reasoning at the very best is what's going on here.

Quoting Xandra:

It is not the sun. In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.


You have yet to prove that.

You also have to disprove that...

1) The diurnal temperature range has not changed over the last 100 years and the last 30 years at the best sited weather stations.

2) Cloud Cover is decreasing.

3) TSI is increasing at portions of Earth's Surface.

4) There is a significant correlation between the sun's output and Cloud Cover.

So let's hear it.

Quoting Xandra:


There is no correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global warming.


Cosmic Rays don't directly cause temperature changes... they modulate the Cloud Cover and Ozone Layer to create Climate Change, so attempting to correlate GCRs to temperature change is useless.


Quoting Xandra:

PDO, AMO, ENSO, MJO, NAO, AO, SOI are natural oscillations and examples of internal variability, not external radiative forcing. They're not capable of causing a long-term warming trend, just short-term temperature variations.


Right, and that is because they create changes with the change in the Cloud Forcing.

NASA agrees with me that simply changes in the PDO and changes in CO2 alone mean that a -PDO can mask Gloal Temperature changes caused by CO2 (if Co2 were causing the warming.)

Quoting article:


“The comings and goings of El Niño, La Niña and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation are part of a longer, ongoing change in global climate,” said Josh Willis, a JPL oceanographer and climate scientist. Sea level rise and global warming due to increases in greenhouse gases can be strongly affected by large natural climate phenomenon such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation. “In fact,” said Willis, “these natural climate phenomena can sometimes hide global warming caused by human activities. Or they can have the opposite effect of accentuating it.”

Quoting Xandra:

97% of the world's scientists agree that humans are causing global warming due to CO2 emissions. Observations and direct measurement confirm that CO2 is currently the main driver of climate change.


I've already gone through with this in depth with Birthmark, but you appear to just want to repeat this falsehood and misrepresent the paper's question to which 97% replied "yes" to.


Quoting Xandra:

Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate.


ANOTHER falsehood?

Quoting Paper:

Surface snowmelt is widespread in coastal Antarctica. Satellite-based microwave sensors have been observing melt area and duration for over three decades. However, these observations do not reveal the total volume of meltwater produced on the ice sheet. Here we present an Antarctic melt volume climatology for the period 1979–2010, obtained using a regional climate model equipped with realistic snow physics. We find that mean continent-wide meltwater volume (1979–2010) amounts to 89 Gt y−1 with large interannual variability (σ = 41 Gt y−1). Of this amount, 57 Gt y−1 (64%) is produced on the floating ice shelves extending from the grounded ice sheet, and 71 Gt y−1 in West-Antarctica, including the Antarctic Peninsula. We find no statistically significant trend in either continent-wide or regional meltwater volume for the 31-year period 1979–2010.




But thank you for your insight.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JupiterKen:
Oh noes...we been Gleicked

Are you sure that you didn't Glieck yourself?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Climate Change Indicators in the United States

Collecting and interpreting environmental indicators play a critical role in our understanding of climate change and its causes. An indicator represents the state of certain environmental conditions over a given area and a specified period of time. Examples of climate change indicators include temperature, precipitation, sea level, and greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 421 Comments: 127633
Quoting Snowlover123:
And BTW Birthmark, I was working on my long response to you, and then I just lost it because my computer closed that tab for no apparent reason!

I'll probably get to you on that long message either today or tomorrow.

Don'tcha just love that. I've taken to doing the long posts in Notepad, saving them, and then C&Ping them. I've lost too many long posts to board quirks or my clicking the wrong thing.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


Nice graphic, iceagecoming. Does it serve any useful purpose beyond being used as blog decor? ;-) I must admit that it does have nice eye appeal. I would give it a 7.5, out of a possible 10


I am curious about the past, this illustrates either
Humanoid intervention (we did use fire a millions ybp)
or some rather large energy input especially 210-190 ybp for a 6 degree jump up and back down 8. Very likely solar, but I'll be open for any suggestions.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1056
Quoting Snowlover123:


There are skeptics like me who want clean energy. Not very many, but there are other skeptics like me out there.


I agree. It's unfortunate that there aren't more like you.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:


The problem is that we were actually warming in HadCruT4 in the 1990s, wheras in the 2000s we have flatlined, so an accurate comparison cannot be made.




That's simply not true. Look at the Marohosy graph again. I'll tell you what see, shall I? What you see is that the temperature at left end appears to be the same as the the temperature on the right end. That in no way means that there has been no warming.

In fact, that graph indicates that the upward trend continues. Just counting the data points we see that eight of the fifteen data points are above the "zero" line; just two are below that line; and three are on that line. Additionally, the two highest highs are further from "zero" than the lows are.

Eyeballing graphs to identify a trend is poor practice, of course. However, with this particular graph there is no possible conclusion other than there is an upward trend over the time of measurement. Whether that trend is statistically significant is another matter and unrelated to the assertion you made.

Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting greentortuloni:


Ah, so that was you with the gerbils! Bastard, those were my only pair of clean shoes.

GAH! See how tricksy the Google is? They got me to blow my own cover! "Don't be evil" indeed!!

I'm phasing out by gerbils, so if anyone has snakes to feed...
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting iceagecoming:


Nice graphic, iceagecoming. Does it serve any useful purpose beyond being used as blog decor? ;-) I must admit that it does have nice eye appeal. I would give it a 7.5, out of a possible 10
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1056
Quoting Xandra:

Snowlover. You are a denier and not a skeptic. Genuine skeptics consider all the evidence in their search for the truth. Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with their pre-determined views and therefore you are a denier.

You dismiss research by scientist, for example Solanki who is a very knowledgeable scientist, and instead cherry-picking scientists that fit your "theory". Scientists, who have been proven wrong time after time after time, for example long wrong climate science disinformer Roy Spencer and long wrong Scafetta the widget man.

You are cherry-picking graphs that fit your theory. Poorly made graphs which one can see directly is not taken from a scientific paper, but instead created by some denier at some anti-science blog.......



"+" 1.38 X 10^23, +/- 1.1%
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting PurpleDrank:
You pick out a few sentences from a paper and make your own interpretation on that basis.


so does NBC nightly news



Ah, Drank. That just is not a fair thing to say at all. OK, it is probably true, but hardly fair that you would only point out NBC. I strongly suspect that any media outlet, that depends on advertising dollars, is going to gear their coverage towards what the advertisers want to hear, with a modicum of truth given to the news. Some, more than others, will allow the advertisers a certain degree of control over the actual content. ... Are you able to think of an examples of this?

Where ya been, Drank? I did know that dinosaurs hibernated.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
You pick out a few sentences from a paper and make your own interpretation on that basis.


so does NBC nightly news

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:

There are skeptics like me who want clean energy. Not very many, but there are other skeptics like me out there.


Snowlover. You are a denier and not a skeptic. Genuine skeptics consider all the evidence in their search for the truth. Deniers, on the other hand, refuse to accept any evidence that conflicts with their pre-determined views and therefore you are a denier.

You dismiss research by scientist, for example Solanki who is a very knowledgeable scientist, and instead cherry-picking scientists that fit your "theory". Scientists, who have been proven wrong time after time after time, for example long wrong climate science disinformer Roy Spencer and long wrong Scafetta the widget man.

You are cherry-picking graphs that fit your theory. Poorly made graphs which one can see directly is not taken from a scientific paper, but instead created by some denier at some anti-science blog.

You give us links to paper which is only based on cloud cover over China or only 7 Spanish stations etc. Not global measurements.

You pick out a few sentences from a paper and make your own interpretation on that basis.

You say that I haven't read your links. I have done that but I am convinced, that you have not read what it says in the papers I and others have given you because these papers conflict with your pre-determined view.

Many independent tests indicate the PMOD composite is the more accurate TSI reconstruction. Here’s one more, and also the last paper about this issue from me. It's the paper by Lockwood et al. 2008.

Look at the image below. If the PMOD composite was correct, the data points should be clustered around the ideal (light blue) line. If ACRIM was correct, a second population should appear aligned along the dashed blue line. It shows no such second population.



From the conclusion in the paper Lockwood 2008:

”Here, we point out that the TSI modelling of Wenzler et al. (2006) from ground-based magnetograms is also consistent with the PMOD composite and inconsistent with ACRIM and IRMB. The great accuracy of this modelling, and the fact that the facular filling factor is the only free parameter, means that it provides an excellent test. In addition, we point out that the ACRIM composite generates some curious phenomena that would need explanation. For example, if the ACRIM composite were to be correct, the strong negative correlation between TSI and GCR fluxes over the solar cycle, for which we have a physical explanation, would reverse polarity on longer time scales for reasons we do not yet understand. This would invalidate almost all previous evidence for solar effects on climate on time scales longer than the solar cycle.

We have also shown that the effect of smoothing time constant cannot be a possible source of the divergent trends in air surface temperature and solar inputs described in paper 1. Hence, like many authors before us, we conclude there is no credible way that the recent rise in air surface temperature can be attributed to solar effects.”


Here is the paper.

It is not the sun. In the last 35 years of global warming, sun and climate have been going in opposite directions.

There is no correlation between cosmic rays and global temperatures over the last 30 years of global warming.

PDO, AMO, ENSO, MJO, NAO, AO, SOI are natural oscillations and examples of internal variability, not external radiative forcing. They're not capable of causing a long-term warming trend, just short-term temperature variations.

97% of the world's scientists agree that humans are causing global warming due to CO2 emissions. Observations and direct measurement confirm that CO2 is currently the main driver of climate change.

The global temperature is still rising and has not been flat the last 15 years.

Antarctica is losing land ice at an accelerating rate.

Etc. etc. etc.

As I told you before, as long as you take your information from anti-scientific blogs you will have a hard time getting a Ph.D. in atmospheric science.

Open your eyes and start over. Learn the basic physics and chemistry so you can recognize bad research. Take a broader view, a single paper must also be seen in the context of the full body of peer-reviewed research.

If you do that, I am convinced it will go better for you. You will also discover that scientists know more about science than you think. They know a lot. ;)
Member Since: November 22, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1281
Quoting RevElvis:
Carbon Dioxide Caused Global Warming at Ice Age’s End

OFCL Link

I don't brake for trolls !


I heard of this report earlier today. The investigation, from what I have heard, was extensive and conducted globally. I look forward to reading the full report.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting Neapolitan:
Thanks for that very humorous piece. I got a heck of a laugh reading that five-year-old editorial piece written by right-wing conspiracy nut Marc Morano. That's the most astounding compendium of cherry-picked and wholly out-of-context quotes I've seen in quite some time. Again, thanks!


Did not Senator Inhofe coauthor and peer review this study? Certainly, this would validate the findings of the study?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting JupiterKen:
Oh noes...we been Gleicked


??? How?

Being "Gleicked" has somehow now become a new catch phrase? Please, explain.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737
Quoting iceagecoming:
NASA Admits No CO2-AGW Warming In USA; Why Is World Warming and Not U.S.?


It comes as not even a tiny surprize that when someone asks “Where does all the CO2 go in an ice age?” that the answer is “The Ocean“.

We already know temperatures rise 800 years before CO2 levels (Caillon 2003), and we know the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the sky. Moreover, basic chemistry tells us that CO2 (like all gases) will dissolve better in cold water, and be released as the water warms. To cap it all off, the deep abyss of the oceans turns over once every millenia or so (which fits loosely with the “lag” between temperature and CO2 levels).

But you would think this new research was solving a deep mystery, rather than confirming what most sane knowledgeable people would expect. Nonetheless, this may be the first detailed study of C13 levels going back 24,000 years.




New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
August 20, 2007


New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Posted By Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov – 4:44 PM ET

Thanks for that very humorous piece. I got a heck of a laugh reading that five-year-old editorial piece written by right-wing conspiracy nut Marc Morano. That's the most astounding compendium of cherry-picked and wholly out-of-context quotes I've seen in quite some time. Again, thanks!
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13465
NASA Admits No CO2-AGW Warming In USA; Why Is World Warming and Not U.S.?


It comes as not even a tiny surprize that when someone asks “Where does all the CO2 go in an ice age?” that the answer is “The Ocean“.

We already know temperatures rise 800 years before CO2 levels (Caillon 2003), and we know the oceans contain 50 times as much CO2 as the sky. Moreover, basic chemistry tells us that CO2 (like all gases) will dissolve better in cold water, and be released as the water warms. To cap it all off, the deep abyss of the oceans turns over once every millenia or so (which fits loosely with the “lag” between temperature and CO2 levels).

But you would think this new research was solving a deep mystery, rather than confirming what most sane knowledgeable people would expect. Nonetheless, this may be the first detailed study of C13 levels going back 24,000 years.




New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears
August 20, 2007


New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears

Posted By Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov – 4:44 PM ET

Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1056
Oh noes...we been Gleicked
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I believe that what greentortuloni is trying to say is that if you do not have strong evidence that would invalidate the AGWT, then conversations that only raise doubt will prove counter productive. The suggestion is for you to wait until you have the evidence to make a strong claim that the AGWT is invalid. No one, and I mean no one, would want someone with the evidence that would invalidate the AGWT to be restrained from making it public.

I fully understand your desire to know more about what is yet unknown. I fully understand your desire to discuss the evidence that you do come across. What I do not understand is the method you choose to present the evidence you find. You more seem to wish to make a presentation that you already have the evidence that invalidates the AGWT as opposed to having an intellectual discussion of the evidence that you do find. Questioning the theory itself is very much needed in science. The way you present the questions is key to knowing your motivations. Do you truly wish to explore the evidence or do you just wish to throw out any piece of evidence that would create a controversy? ... Did you wish a discussion of the science or do you wish to make premature claims about the science? I believe that this all that is really being asked of you to clarify for us.

Why do you think that I have made statements to you that you have failed to:

1. Rewrite the Laws of Physics

2. Turn basic Chemistry upside down

3. Invalidate the AGWT

4. Shown that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas

5. Prove that man's activities have not emitted tons/day of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere

What you have failed to do is to present yourself as someone that is only interested in the science and what science can tell us. ... Too controversial?


Excellent Rookie, You said just about everything I wanted to but didn't take the time to put together. Thank you.
Member Since: August 23, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 99
Post 279:

I Was a Paid Internet Shill


Speaking of shills.


..Actual Bill Ayers Rant: Why Do ‘Uniformed Military’ Get to Board Planes First?
By Benny Johnson | The Blaze – 21 hrs ago..


Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn paid an impromptu visit to Occupy Wall Street in New York City Friday, bestowing their advice to a gaggle of elated protesters. Ayers and Dohrn, former leaders of the violent leftist Weather Underground group, were greeted like rock stars at the camp. A reception, you'll soon hear, they wouldn't want to give the nation's military members.

The couple passed along protesting and anti-military nuggets of wisdom to the youngsters who received it in good spirits. For example, the former confidants to President Obama made sure to mention that America is "a declining power" that must depend on "a militarized 1%."

Dohrn didn't parse words:




But the pair didn't end their theorizing there. In fact, they even went on to broach Obama's controversial former pastor Jeremiah Wright. According to Dohrn, Wright is an "incredible guy":

Link
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 23 Comments: 1056
Carbon Dioxide Caused Global Warming at Ice Age’s End

OFCL Link

I don't brake for trolls !
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


So you're saying skeptics should not question anything having to do with Global Warming?

That's censorship.





I believe that what greentortuloni is trying to say is that if you do not have strong evidence that would invalidate the AGWT, then conversations that only raise doubt will prove counter productive. The suggestion is for you to wait until you have the evidence to make a strong claim that the AGWT is invalid. No one, and I mean no one, would want someone with the evidence that would invalidate the AGWT to be restrained from making it public.

I fully understand your desire to know more about what is yet unknown. I fully understand your desire to discuss the evidence that you do come across. What I do not understand is the method you choose to present the evidence you find. You more seem to wish to make a presentation that you already have the evidence that invalidates the AGWT as opposed to having an intellectual discussion of the evidence that you do find. Questioning the theory itself is very much needed in science. The way you present the questions is key to knowing your motivations. Do you truly wish to explore the evidence or do you just wish to throw out any piece of evidence that would create a controversy? ... Did you wish a discussion of the science or do you wish to make premature claims about the science? I believe that this all that is really being asked of you to clarify for us.

Why do you think that I have made statements to you that you have failed to:

1. Rewrite the Laws of Physics

2. Turn basic Chemistry upside down

3. Invalidate the AGWT

4. Shown that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas

5. Prove that man's activities have not emitted tons/day of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere

What you have failed to do is to present yourself as someone that is only interested in the science and what science can tell us. ... Too controversial?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4737

Viewing: 332 - 282

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.