Posted on 10/26/2009 12:55:40 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Ping to this one.
What are the temps doing lately? Hmmmm...is the downward trend about to falsify the theory that elevated CO2 is causing warmer temperatures?Right. Doesn't make any amount of sense on any level, even the most basic level which is the doom and gloom premise of 'global warming'.
Never mind all the complicated indices, the missing upper troposphere heating et al; it is NOT panning out as Dr. James Hansen NASA GISS predicted, prognosticated, extrapolated ... based on ANY amount of modelling he and his cohorts did with their GCMs ...
Depends on if you care about science or political motivations or what. Both heat content and temperature are important, and both atmospheric and ocean (at various elevations/depths--including surface) are important.
The fact is, climate is variable, and it's not good news if the climate change is NOT anthropogenic, because then it means we have less control over our destiny and must simply manage reactively. But some people seem to think that it's a good thing for humans to be powerless and unable to prevent disruptions.
There are purely academic sides to this, and then practical sides. But a comprehensive budget looking at variable insolation/radiation would be wonderful to get at where the excess energy is going, if not temperature change. But even if the average is going up, there are areas that could be going down. And things like the increased snowfall from higher temperatures can have huge effects, too.
“Deconstructing Global Warming” Presentation by Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
PPT prez can be found on that page ...
No ans. to specifics; thanks anyway ...
Got to take off now.
Regards
Well, the original article addresses them, by using SATELLITE data—the dataset preferred by the “global cooling” claimants....and STILL found no cooling trend unless you use just the right combination of things to compare. That’s known as “cherry-picking” the data to achive a desired supposed result, rather than letting the data show what the reality is.
Huh?
No one is claiming there is a cooling trend for the last 130 years. Idiots.
So? That's not what was claimed or all they examined.
What are the temps doing lately?
Staying steady to rising slowly.
Hmmmm...is the downward trend about to falsify the theory that elevated CO2 is causing warmer temperatures?
Read again--there is no recent downward trend unless you cherry-pick the data.
Again, since it seems to be missed: They looked at the recent trend and there is no cooling trend, unless you cherry-pick. Read what's written at the link you sent, and you see that the "cooling trenders" are cherry picking more than the "global warmers" when they push their point. Both sides are, as usual, at fault.
Some fun parts of the webpage you pointed us to:
• Global warming did not ‘stop’ 10 years ago, in fact, it was pretty close to model projections. [Using the GISS and NCDC records beginning in 1998 and 1999]Or how about this...
• Global warming is proceeding faster than expected. [Using the GISS record staring in 1991 or 1992—the cool years just after the volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo]
Another example of careful data selection can be found in recent claims made by Richard Lindzen who is fond of stating that “there has been no statistically significant net global warming for the last fourteen years.” A quick check of my Cherry-Pickers Guide shows Lindzen to be particularly crafty because there is no support for such a statement in any of the five datasets. So how did he arrive at that conclusion? By using annual data values instead of monthly data. Using fewer data points (14 annual values instead of 168 monthly ones) doesn’t affect the actual trend value so much, but it does affect the statistical significance of the trend. The fewer data points you use, the less significant the trend is. So by using annual data (from the CRU or satellite datasets), Lindzen is able to cite a 14-yr temperature trend that is not statistically significant.Sneaky little denier, ain't he?
What's wrong with reality, instead of trying to push falsehoods? I'm so sick of this issue being twisted, when we all have to live on this earth and face whatever is happening. I don't want to cripple our economy...I want to keep it robust so we can manage whatever changes our climate throws at us.
Oh? Please show us your evaluation, your dataset, and tell us what methods you used for analysis (e.g., Mann-Kendall) so we can provide peer review.
Just looking at a graph of the data, it's obvious that unless you specifically and deliberately use the anomalous 1998 as a base, you don't get this glorious "cooling trend."
So you're calling the satellite 'bama data "Jim Hansen's" and "fraudulent"? You're claiming that Jim Hansen is at NOAA? Are you for real?
Ed the Boss: Jim, your sales numbers can’t keep going down.
Jim the Salesman: But they’re not...they’re steady or slowly going up!
Ed: If you compare them to 1998, they’re lower.
Jim: But 1998 was when there was all that activity at El Nina, Inc. Of course my sales numbers were unusually good that year, but you can’t call my recent numbers a downward trend just because of that one oddball year. My numbers are better than either 1997 or 1999..or a hundred years ago...or last year!
Ed: Doesn’t matter. Until your everyday numbers are as high as that special year, I’m just going to have to give you bad reviews and claim that your numbers are going down.
“and it’s not good news if the climate change is NOT anthropogenic”
It’s not, so you’d better proceed on that premise. If water vapor - the dominant greenhouse gas - is included, humanity’s contribution to total greenhouse gasses is .02%. That is 2 parts in 10,000.
On the other hand, the Sun provides very close to 100% of the heat input for this rock. Slight solar variability can very easily swamp most other contributions, certainly including the miniscule amount contributed by CO2. That is occurring now, as the current solar minimum stretches to near-record lengths. Both last winter and this fall we’ve seen unusual amounts of snowfall. Guess what, snow and ice are major sources of NEGATIVE temperature influence, since so much extra energy is reflected into space. You’ll also note that the northern icecap continues to grow since the minimum of 2007, and the southern ice extent is well above the cherry-picked baseline.
Looking forward, the consensus among solar astronomers is that the coming cycle, 24, will be longer and weaker than cycle 23 - meaning even more of a cooling influence than we’re seeing now. That should mean something like 15 more years of cooling, at a minimum.
Also keep in mind that most likely a new Ice Age will come at some point. Any warming is a good thing.
You use a static analysis typical of liberals. Curious.
That is 2 parts in 10,000.
That's a cool red herring. Have you convinced anyone to inject a bit of ricin because it would be only 2 in 10,000 parts of what they ate that day?
Do people actually fall for such claims as being relevant?
I guess they do...science education is in a poor state in America these days, and I see folks use the specious "it's only a little bit" argument a lot here. :-(
Slight solar variability can very easily swamp most other contributions, certainly including the miniscule amount contributed by CO2.
And an airplane's control surface movements can swamp out lack of proper trim, but unless you account for the drift, you'll be miles off target at the end of a flight. Another red herring, I note.
Guess what, snow and ice are major sources of NEGATIVE temperature influence, since so much extra energy is reflected into space.
I presented research on this at a major university more than 20 years ago, so I'm not new to the subject and I'm quite aware of the potential feedbacks involved with albedo changes. You didn't mention things like the latitudinal shifting of albedo belts, albedo changes from enhanced ablation, etc.
You’ll also note that the northern icecap continues to grow since the minimum of 2007, and the southern ice extent is well above the cherry-picked baseline.
Considering ice sheets have a delayed response, and the effects and differences between wet and dry/warm and cold base ice sheets, ocean transport, isostasy, ice viscosity, snowfall increases from enhanced evapotranspiration, etc., sometimes the responses are not nearly what one would expect from a simple analysis.
Also keep in mind that most likely a new Ice Age will come at some point. Any warming is a good thing.
Sorry, but your simple analyses are worse than none. I love the cartoon with the caveman looking out of the cave at the snout of a glacier and yelling back in, "Honey, the ice age is here..." (See my upthread comment about those who couldn't get out of the way of the advancing ice sheets. :-)
And "warming is a good thing" shows you're not really looking at the climate change in a realistic manner. It's not a consistent warming across the board, or countering an insolation reduction. Some areas can actually cool faster than they otherwise would, even while the globe is warming. Etc.
And "warming is a good thing" shows you're not really looking at the climate change in a realistic manner.Now that is nearly completely delusional, considering we have come out of an ice age AND could be headed back into one ...
Debating with one who is delusional would be, well, delusional also.
Have a good life.
PS Warming *is* good, more CO2 WOULD be good, and NASA GISS Dr. James Hansen HAS missed it with his 'models' ...
I think you have no concept of geologic timescales--even considering just the Neogene*/Quaternary, it's not like our lifetimes are likely to span any observable natural turning point.
But you're right...we're about at the point where we should be beginning to see slow expansion of the ice, as we're at the proper lag from the last ice-sheet collapse. So if we keep a constant temperature, it would be "warming" from an expected decreasing "baseline."
Debating with one who is delusional would be, well, delusional also.
I don't think you're delusional...just ignorant.
Have a good life.
Thank you. You, too!
Sorry if it upset you that I asked specifics about your claims and you couldn't provide them. I know that bluffing often works here, so take heart that your attempt was not bad...you just got unlucky and someone who knows about the topic wandered by.
PS Warming *is* good
I bet the local high school or college has an earth science class where you could learn about planetary motion and discover why a change in insolation is not the same as the warming distribution caused by atmospheric changes.
And in the college-level course, you could learn how long soil catenas take to develop and see why just shifting climate belts to areas that are out of equilibrium with their soils means we can't just shift latitudes and grow the same things, for example.
Your statements are just too broad to be correct.
more CO2 WOULD be good
Hmmm...but we just can't affect the earth. The amount of CO2 we put into the atmosphere is tiny compared to the historical amounts. Etc. </grin>
NASA GISS Dr. James Hansen HAS missed it with his 'models'
I'm no fan of Dr. Hansen, a man I consider to be an unscientific, dishonest political beast.
*I hate that term. I would so much rather refer to the Late Tertiary.
I "use an analysis" based on current reality, rather than specious predictions.
"That's a cool red herring. Have you convinced anyone to inject a bit of ricin because it would be only 2 in 10,000 parts of what they ate that day?"
Are you claiming that such a small percentage has a measurable effect? I can't tell from your "red herring" response.
The fact is that the flawed GISS climate models use an "infinite atmosphere" approximation. Those models predict up to a six degree C change by 2100. When corrected for a finite atmosphere, they predict a one degree C change by 2100 - completely within the noise and impossible to even measure due to natural variability. The models (which are the only scientific basis for "anthropogenic global warming" claims) also have many other flaws such as not properly modeling volcanism, solar variability, or the major ocean cycles. It makes no sense to spend TRILLIONS of dollars fighting this chimera, when a) the models use to justify it are deeply flawed b) there's no urgent crisis c) better technology will be available in the coming decades (and we'll move to it with or without Cap and Tax) and d) the other major greenhouse gas emitting nations, China in particular, just told us to stuff it, they're not interested in killing their economy. Let me quote the Chinese Minister of Climate:
Xiao Ziniu, director general of the Beijing Climate Centre, told the British Guardian newspaper recently that "There is no agreed conclusion about how much change is dangerous....Whether the climate turns warmer or cooler, there are both positive and negative effects....In Chinese history, there have been many periods warmer than today." He disputed the disaster warnings of the UNIPCC, saying, "The accuracy of the prediction is very low because the climate is affected by many mechanisms we do not fully understand."As I said when I posted about that article, it's sad when you're getting the truth from the Red Chinese, and propaganda from our own government.
"And an airplane's control surface movements can swamp out lack of proper trim, but unless you account for the drift, you'll be miles off target at the end of a flight. Another red herring, I note."
My point was that all evidence points to solar activity (or lack thereof) swamping whatever weak effect human greenhouse gasses might have. The trim settings don't matter much if the pilot is leaning on the stick.
By the way, philosophically I have no problem with humans having measurable, but non-catastrophic effects on the planet. Every species does, and there're a lot of us.
"I presented research on this at a major university more than 20 years ago, so I'm not new to the subject and I'm quite aware of the potential feedbacks involved with albedo changes. You didn't mention things like the latitudinal shifting of albedo belts, albedo changes from enhanced ablation, etc."
Ah, the good old "appeal to authority". I'm sure you realize, given your apparent education level, that is a debating no-no.
At any rate, despite your verbose response, I note you said nothing to refute my point.
"Considering ice sheets have a delayed response, and the effects and differences between wet and dry/warm and cold base ice sheets, ocean transport, isostasy, ice viscosity, snowfall increases from enhanced evapotranspiration, etc., sometimes the responses are not nearly what one would expect from a simple analysis."
Then why, oh why, did the CAGW crowed seize on the shrinkage of the northern ice cap as "indisputable evidence of global warming"? Granted, they were certainly wrong, but the state of the ice caps has been a big part of the debate. And while you might see localized, temporary cooling, if the planet is warming as a whole you'd certainly expect to see more places warming than cooling. Also, the models predict the largest heat transfer to the poles.
"Sorry, but your simple analyses are worse than none. I love the cartoon with the caveman looking out of the cave at the snout of a glacier and yelling back in, "Honey, the ice age is here..." (See my upthread comment about those who couldn't get out of the way of the advancing ice sheets. :-)"
I think you'll find you're wrong, if you live long enough.
'And "warming is a good thing" shows you're not really looking at the climate change in a realistic manner. It's not a consistent warming across the board, or countering an insolation reduction. Some areas can actually cool faster than they otherwise would, even while the globe is warming. Etc.'
Warming 'on the average' IS a good thing, as is reasonably increased CO2 in the air (better crop growth). The worst famines in history have been during cold periods. Look into how much of the world's crops are now grown in Canada or similar latitudes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.