Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[nightrider]

According to an article linked from this thread, even the thermometer records have discrepancies. So, not obvious, then.

 

Either they:

 

(1) Corrected the raw temps to account for this and the proxy fails to produce this corrected record - in this case the proxy is useless

(2) They did not correct the raw temps - again the proxy is useless because it is not possible to validate against a known temperature record

[HJL_Shef]

And what's the difference between Sea Ice and Freshwater Ice in this context, and in relation to how they are created. Does melting sea ice increase sea levels? Does melting freshwater ice increase sea levels?

 

How much of the Earth's ice is in the Arctic, and how much in the Antarctic?

Is the Antarctic losing ice (other than the Wilkins ice shelf) or is it gaining it?

 

A smaller proportion of the Earth's ice is in the Arctic in comparison to the Antarctic, granted. The latest data I have seen suggests that there are a couple of hotspots in east Antarctica that are losing mass, and a coldspot in east Antarctica (at the highest altitude near to the divide) that is gaining mass, whilst the rest of east Antarctica is pretty much in balance. Some data sets point at average mass gain, yes, though of a very small amount I might add. It has been a while since I needed to read up on Antarctic ocean and atmospheric circulations, but I believe that mass loss in west Antarctica can drive moister air over east Antarctica to an extent, causing both albedo and precipitation -related feedbacks. This, combined with the fact that the east Antarctic ice sheet is so large and has such a high albedo consequently, as well as the fact that the Antarctic ozone hole may have (source?) shrunk ever so slightly in the last few years as we cap CFC release, could explain this.

 

Melting sea ice does not increase sea levels (directly). It does have an important role within the Arctic ecosystem, ocean circulation system, and tropospheric climate to name a few. There are many intricate feedback mechanisms based around albedo and ocean-air heat fluxes.

Edited December 8, 2009 by HJL_Shef
missed an 'east' out

[splodgeyAl]

Either they:

 

(1) Corrected the raw temps to account for this and the proxy fails to produce this corrected record - in this case the proxy is useless

(2) They did not correct the raw temps - again the proxy is useless because it is not possible to validate against a known temperature record

 

Both of which could only be determined by doing the comparison, publishing the results and getting them peer reviewed. Which is what has happened, I still think that taking one or two sentences out of context from an ongoing discussion of the best way to publish the results, is well mostly, a great way to stifle sensible discussion of the real issue at hand

[nightrider]

Both of which could only be determined by doing the comparison, publishing the results and getting them peer reviewed. Which is what has happened, I still think that taking one or two sentences out of context from an ongoing discussion of the best way to publish the results, is well mostly, a great way to stifle sensible discussion of the real issue at hand

 

And then they conclude it is ok to use the tree-ring proxy and then make conclusions that the current warming is unusual compared to the last 1000 years on that basis....when clearly the tree-ring proxy is not ok.

[JIbbo]

Both of which could only be determined by doing the comparison, publishing the results and getting them peer reviewed. Which is what has happened, I still think that taking one or two sentences out of context from an ongoing discussion of the best way to publish the results, is well mostly, a great way to stifle sensible discussion of the real issue at hand

 

This wasn't made know when the papers were published......

 

Climate gate has shown us this trick of 'splicing' the temperature records.

 

The use of proxies pre 1960 was know, but what wasn't know was than Mann et al were using temperature datas in the graphs post 1960 due to the 'divergence' problem.

[Wildcat]

Sorry, but I'll have to disagree with you.

 

The science is either settled or it isn't. It isn't

 

Science is never fully settled.

 

The 'evidence' of a .7% rise in temperatures (note percent not degrees) is smaller than the tolerences built into the models, and even the majority of the current temperature recording devices.

 

My mistake that should have been 0.7 degrees (figure from latest IPCC report).

 

Edit: I am pretty sure I have seen the 0.7 degrees, it certainly fits in with the graphs I have seen, but looking at the IPCC report for it this section has jumped out at me which gives the figures for warming (although not the 0.7 degrees I quoted, infact it give 0.8 degrees for the last 100 years)

 

Instrumental observations over the past 157 years show that temperatures at the surface have risen globally, with important regional variations. For the global average, warming in the last century has occurred in two phases, from the 1910s to the 1940s (0.35°C), and more strongly from the 1970s to the present (0.55°C). An increasing rate of warming has taken place over the last 25 years, and 11 of the 12 warmest years on record have occurred in the past 12 years. Above the surface, global observations since the late 1950s show that the troposphere (up to about 10 km) has warmed at a slightly greater rate than the surface, while the stratosphere (about 10–30 km) has cooled markedly since 1979. This is in accord with physical expectations and most model results. Confirmation of global warming comes from warming of the oceans, rising sea levels, glaciers melting, sea ice retreating in the Arctic and diminished snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere.

 

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-3.1.html

 

 

The fact that Trenberth admits that they can't account for the recent cooling (or loss of energy from the system) and that this is a travesty, just goes to show that it's not just the maths that aren't complete yet.

 

The models they've used (adjusted) over the years to show the massive (alleged) rise in global temperature have all failed to predict the current cooling trend. Don't even think of ENSO for this one, they've known about ENSO for years, and I'm sure they didn't leave it out of the models did they? I'm sure they adjusted for the warming phase of ENSO, didn't they?

 

Even with surface cooling we still have incredible temperature rises over the same period.

 

The models show a remarkable correlation with the evidence, look at the figure on page 2 of the latest IPCC report to see the correlation between the models and the measurements. There is a difference but the trend is predicted.

 

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/FAQ/wg1_faq-8.1.html

 

I remain unconvinced re the science on climate change, let alone the AGW component of it.

 

The fact that YOU state that no natural process has been put forward for it, so it must be us, is a ridiculous statement.

 

Come on, at one point didn't man pray and offer sacrifices for the return of the summer. No one understood the natural process that changes the seasons at that time, so it must have been the prayers that made it warm again!

 

The truth of the matter is that we just don't understand the incredibly complex problem that is the Earth's climate, and whilst we have true belivers spouting that it's our fault, it's our CO2 output that's causing the (alleged) rise in global temperature (even though all other previous rises in the Earths temperature have been shown to lead, not lag, CO2 concentration increases) we are wasting scientific resources that could be better used looking into mitigating the effects of this (mainly) natural phenomenon.

 

Maybe I overstated the case. Various cases have been put forward for natural influences on climate change none of them however match the evidence. The inclusion of man made influences to climate change improve the model. That may not amount to proof, but it as far as scientific proof can ever go to justifying a theory. Theories are not proved scientifically they are refined by observations and comparisons with the predictions they make.

 

Whilst we have people prepared to deny the consensus view of global warming, based on politcal scepticism rather than an impartial assessment of the scientific evidence, we will be participants in the needless destruction of habitats people rely upon for their livelihood, creating problems not just in developing countries but across the world. Problems needlessly created by the selfishness of the propogandists that deny the scientific evidence.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

If the calibration fails after 1960, there is no guarantee it is valid for any other time period. Using it as a proxy is just useless.

 

Tree rings aren't used in the latest models, they use data from evidence like bores in ice and the ground, and the results are the same as those given in the 10 year old tree ring study that has been the subject of so much attention from McIntyre. The debate has moved on and Mann's tree ring based study of temperatures shown to be accurate despite the criticisms.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/07/noaa-paper-north-american-2008-cooling-attributed-to-natural-causes/#comments

 

“Our work shows that there can be cold periods, but that does not mean the end of global warming. The recent coolness was caused by transitory natural factors that temporarily masked the human-caused signal,” said Judith Perlwitz, lead author of the study and a researcher with the Cooperative Institute for Research Environmental Sciences, and NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, both in Boulder, Colo. The paper will be published Dec. 8 in Geophysical Research Letter

 

Anyone think the AGW people are making this stuff up as they go along.

 

If 'Cool' periods can be caused by natural factors.

 

Can't warm periods ?

 

Warm temperatures = Anthropogenic factors. Cool temperatures = Natural factors…

 

Of course! Silly me! How could I have been so stupid?

 

Of course warm periods can be caused by natural factors.

 

No where in the article does it say otherwise.

 

What it does say is that by adding in the effects of Greenhouse gasses and the impact of aerosols, to the natural modeling the predictions conform better with what happened over North America in the 2008 temperature record.

Edited December 8, 2009 by Wildcat

[Wildcat]

This wasn't made know when the papers were published......

 

Climate gate has shown us this trick of 'splicing' the temperature records.

 

The use of proxies pre 1960 was know, but what wasn't know was than Mann et al were using temperature datas in the graphs post 1960 due to the 'divergence' problem.

 

Err it was clearly labelled that they weren't included in the original paper.

 

The bogus criticisms from denialist bloggers have been that they didn't include data that they knew to be flawed.

[Wildcat]

How does it compare with the Medieval Warm Period?

 

What is clear, both from the temperature reconstructions and from independent evidence - such as the extent of the recent melting of mountain glaciers - is that the planet has been warmer in the past few decades than at any time during the medieval period. In fact, the world may not have been so warm for 6000 or even 125,000 years

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644-climate-myths-it-was-warmer-during-the-medieval-period-with-vineyards-in-england.html