Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 Next
Comments 17851 to 17900:
-
randman at 12:55 PM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
I am a little concerned about rebutting you on sea levels as not sure it's OK here to do that or not. But be that as it may, consider the following:
"The numbers didn’t add up. Even as Earth grew warmer and glaciers and ice sheets thawed, decades of satellite data seemed to show that the rate of sea-level rise was holding steady — or even declining.Now, after puzzling over this discrepancy for years, scientists have identified its source: a problem with the calibration of a sensor on the first of several satellites launched to measure the height of the sea surface using radar. Adjusting the data to remove that error suggests that sea levels are indeed rising at faster rates each year."
http://www.nature.com/news/satellite-snafu-masked-true-sea-level-rise-for-decades-1.22312
1. The July 2017 report says the satellite data did not show sea level rise. My question to you is did you know that or were you led to believe prior to July that the satellite data showed sea levels rising? Be honest and ask yourself how that happened if "scientists" actually knew the data said something else.
2. Note the solution of adjusting the data. (Note to mods: this is why I think responding on this is appropriate on this thread because we are discussing the trustworthiness and reliability of data.)
If "adjusting the data" were just a one-off thing, this would appear unobjectionable perhaps. Would have to look at the technicals on the sensor stuff, but this seems like part of a pattern. Baseline in the 80s was 15 degrees celsius and then that's "adjusted" to 14 degrees which just happens then to show warming.
You don't find that suspicious, especially in light of the recent paper questioning such "adjustments" along with many scientists also questioning the adjustments with some of them having been much more pro-AGW.
I think there is an issue here and should be looked into. Are we merely being sold a story based on adjusting data to fit a narrative? -
Tom Dayton at 12:55 PM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Randman: climatologists use anomalies instead of absolute temperatures, because the former can be estimated much more precisely. See the recent RealClimate post about that.
-
randman at 12:42 PM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Eclectic also, perhaps the point on oranges went over your head? We're talking around several hundred years of significant climate change for the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida where the region became colder, not warmer. This began long before industrialization and is a pretty significant climate change then that cannot be blamed on man causing it.
Particularly after the freeze of 1835, we saw a steady change pushing back commercial orange groves further and further south due to the region becoming colder, not warmer. That has yet to change, in fact.
Why is that if we are experiencing such unprecendented warming? What caused the climate change beginning in 1835 or actually earlier? -
randman at 12:30 PM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Eclectic, can you just stick to the facts? You say there is all this evidence. I have been looking at the presentations of that "evidence" for 30 years and frankly, doesn't appear to be any evidence at all to speak of.
That's why I asked about the mean of 59 degrees, 15 degrees celsius. I was hoping someone here on a site dedicated, it appears, to discounting skeptic arguments of AGW, would be able to offer their explanation of why the mean was retroactively changed. Just read a few peer-review papers from the 80s which boldly talk of deviations from the mean in great detail. But noticeably absent is a discussion of the actual base-line. Seems like you have to search high and low for that.
Hansen's 1981 paper does include his baseline as well as various comments from he and Jones to the press and testimony before Congress.
But at some point, 15 became 14, and I can't find a single scientific paper explaining why that was. Now maybe you don't see the significance of that? But if the mean from 1950-1980 was 15 degrees celsius, we have seen no warming whatsoever in 30 years, and whatever else has happened could not have been caused by warming because it didn't happen.
So I ask again. What was the justification or reason for lowering the baseline from 15 degrees celsius to 14 degrees celsius. If you don't know, that's fine, but don't act like it's some kidn of crazy question. -
Eclectic at 12:00 PM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Randman, you have an interesting way of thinking.
On the basis of (A) one alleged sea wall in Portugal, and (B) whether oranges can be grown in northern Florida versus southern Florida . . . you entirely dismiss a century's accumulated evidence of substantial rapid global warming. (Including your handwaving away of the latest 4 decades of satellite evidence of ongoing accelerating sea level rise / spectacular attrition of glaciers / and the melting of thousands of cubic miles of ice.)
Quite marvellously amusing, Randman. Clearly you possess a peculiar & intense sense of humor.
Though in view of the seriousness of the global situation, your humor counts as black humor. Or is orange the new black?
-
Rob Honeycutt at 08:15 AM on 24 September 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
Rbrooks502... First of all, my name is Rob, not Ron. Second, no. I am not a paid writer. After that, it's really hard to know where to begin.
I'll state that, thinking that I wouldn't have the ability to go into the devil's den in a similar way as Meyer's has come here... That would be incorrect. I've spend years wading into debates with climate skeptics. Anyone who knows me can attest to that.
Let's see if we can go through your list here...
1) I'm sorry but this is very close to word salad. I'm having a hard time making heads or tails of what you're trying to say.
2) Ditto on this one. I do not understand what you mean by "solidifying" in respect to weather or how this relates to anything discussed in my piece, or how this relates to anything relative to human nature.
3) I had to do a quick search on this page to see where the term "denier" is used. The first occurrance here is in your comment.
4) I agree (I think). That's why I've tried to keep my entire article based in the evidence presented in the body of scientific research.
5) All of Michael Mann's relevant data is available to the public. No FOIA req'd.
6) The NIPCC report comes from a very small group of scientists, most of whom have no specific expertise in climate science. They are funded by oil companies. Unlike the IPCC, the NIPCC goes through no formal review process. In short, it's a farcical report (and that's trying to put it kindly).
7) That's rather easy. Because if you lie as a scientific researcher you will get incorrect answers and your research will not stand the test of time. The scientific process works exactly the same with climate science as it does with any other science.
8) Meyers is not the only person talking about the costs. The entire world is discussing the costs AND the benefits relative to the costs of inaction.
9) Yes. I agree that you are able to understand, but for some reason it's quite clear that you are choosing not to. You are choosing to take a non-neutral position which is contrary to the position presented by the vast body of scientific evidence.
10) There are areas of settled science, and there are areas that are not settled. The elements that are not yet settled do not affect those that are.
RBrooks... Contrary to your claims of neutrality, it's clear that you are anything but. If you are, at this point in history, unconvinced by the science then it would be completely impossible for there to ever be enough evidence to convince you. That is not an opinion. It's just an observation.
As for the $83/person for climate science, that works out to about 23 cents a day. You likely spend many times that on coffee each day. Given that much of that cost is also related to weather predictions, I'd have to suggest, when the population of entire southern half of Florida can evacuate in a timely manner because of those weather predictions... That $83 more than pays for itself. It's a net return on the investment.
Given that there is almost certainly always going to be a sub-set of the human population who will never accept the science related to climate change, as a species we will have to continue to take action without your help. That's fine. A great deal is already being accomplished in reducing our carbon emissions. Other nations like China and India are also starting to take aggressive action to decarbonize.
Please don't take it personally, but I don't think we need you to agree with us in order to fix the problem.
-
One Planet Only Forever at 07:29 AM on 24 September 20172017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #38
The article identifies that there are portions of the USA that the global community can strive to support.
Selective international trade that benefits that 'deserving portion of the USA' could be helpful.
And International trade sanctions against the USA may be needed to change the minds of 'people who can regionally temporarily get away with Winning the ability to have more of a competitive advantage by behaving less acceptably.' If so, those sanctions need to be targeted to get the attention of the portion that needs to change its mind.
But in spite of those efforts it is likely that the USA (and the future of humanity) will collectively suffer set-backs because of this brief period of 'Being Collectively Led Further in the Wrong Direction'.
Responsible leadership can make things better. Irresponsible leadership undeniably can only try to create temporary impressions that ultimately fade away/can't be maintained/can't be sustained. Unfortunately the inevitable negative ending of the unsustainable developed delusions seldom significantly impacts the few who benefited most from developing the damaging deceptions. That is why some wealthy powerful people support irresponsible leadership (in business and government) - they only care about improving-prolonging their chances to be short-term Winners, with all others being the Losers.
-
randman at 06:37 AM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
MA Rodger, look it up if you don't believe me. Hansen's 1981 paper has the mean from 1950-1980 at 288 LINK
In 1988, he testified it was 59 degrees F. Same thing basically.
LINK
Jones also said it was 59 degrees which is the same as 15 degrees celsius.
Where are the papers to justify revising it MUCH LOWER to 14 degrees? Just looks very arbitrary to me and after the predictions of higher annual means over 15 degrees failed to materialize.
If you disagree, show me something from 1988 or earlier, meaning that was written and published then.Moderator Response:[RH] Shortened links.
[JH] The use of all caps constitutes shouting and is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. Please read this policy and adhere to it.
-
MA Rodger at 05:27 AM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
randman @454.
You state "The consensus was that the mean from 1950-1980 was 15 degrees celsius." Where do you get this from?
All I see is a newspaper article from early 1989 (see link @452) that quotes PD Jones saying:-
"The British readings showed that the average global temperature in 1988 was 0.612 degrees Fahrenheit higher than the long-term average for the period 1950 through 1979, which is a base for comparing global temperatures. The average worldwide temperature for that 30-year period is roughly 59 degrees Fahrenheit, the British researchers said."
While 59ºF = 15ºC, I don't see this statement in a newspaper article about a 1950-79 anomaly-base obtained as part of a telephone interview as constituting any sort of past "consensus."
If you calculate the average anomaly from today's HadCRUT4 for this period 1950-79, it comes out to -0.065ºC. And just to join all the dots up, the HadCRUT4 anomaly for 1988 is +0.199ºC, yielding a 1950-79-based 1988 anomaly of +0.264ºC. While this is significantly lower than the "0.612 degrees Fahrenheit" quoted in the article (= +0.34ºC), it must be born in mind that the coverage of global temperature data was still being developed back in the late 1980s as Jones (1988) rather well ilustrates.
-
randman at 04:32 AM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Here's a timeline of significant freezes.
"The *impact freeze that occurred on February 2-9 brought the lowest temperatures that had ever been recorded in north and central Florida. This freeze is considered an *impact freeze because it ended attempts to commercially grow citrus in South Georgia, southeast South Carolina and in the northern part of Florida."
http://flcitrusmutual.com/render.aspx?p=/industry-issues/weather/freeze_timeline.aspx
Note this comment elsewhere as well:
"he century preceding the damaging freeze of 1835 was relatively warm as evidenced by the fact that unprotected orange trees were grown and reached full size in South Carolina and Georgia (Attaway, 1997). Freezes that caused injury to citrus as far south as central and southern Florida occurred in 1835, 1857, 1894, 1895, 1962, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1989. In Alabama during the first half of the 1900s (1900 to 1948), severe freezes that injured satsumas occurred in 1924, 1928, 1930, 1933, and 1940 (Winberg, 1948b)."
http://hortsci.ashspublications.org/content/43/2/287.full
This region grew colder, not warmer. Also note, there are different kinds of citrus. Satsuma, which the paper discusses, can withstand colder temps from what I understand. -
randman at 04:21 AM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Philippe, not sure what you asking here. My comments are based on observation. It's a fact that you can't really grow oranges in the Jacksonville, FL are anymore, at least not commercially. I base that on having lived there, had an orange tree in the yard, noted how oranges don't grow or turn sour if grafted, and on the fact when I was a yojng boy travelling to Florida, there were tons of orange groves in areas that can't grow there now.
If you want, look up the zones for growing things, and you can see this for yourself. Orange groves had to move south. This shouldn't be a controversial comment as it's demonstrably true.
In colonial times, you could grow oranges in South Carolinal which is why a town was named Orangeburg.
If you want sources, google the towns of Orangeburg and Orange Park, and you can verify they do exist. You can also look up the times when orange groves would grow there if you'd like. -
Rbrooks502 at 03:57 AM on 24 September 2017Correcting Warren Meyer on Forbes
I wonder if Ron Honeycutt is an IPCC supported columnist. IE paid to write. I am writing as a skeptic of all. I have found in my years that the more I think I know the less that I actually do know. By that criteria, I find myself researching more and more and would offer that others do the same. My experiences are in US History which requires a deep understanding of political and military history. In that arena I study Combat Veteran studies from the front line. I also have research in Psychology, Philosophy, Current events. I have an equisitive mind that dates back 50 years. I am published, and will be published again soon. But that all together by no means makes me a master of any of this, but it does make me informed or at least better than average. You may have to excuse my punctuation as I have professionals handle what I miss. From a scientific point of view i agree with Einstien and will let the others do all the math.
I come at this from the perspective of neutrality. I have read Warren Meyer's Forbes magazine articles and I have red Honeycutt's above. Coming to this from a neutral stance I would argue that what I am seeing is piling on of one columinst's points of views over another columnist's point of view. As such, one has to ask the question, who is selling what to whom. And all I am seeing is more of the same. Arguements that I am seeing here are in direct parrallel with the types of arguements that I see regularly on FaceBook, and with the same amount dressing down. Ibeit the verbage is of higher caliber, the reality is still the same. He said, she said, we have more evidence than you, you are wrong, I am right, etc.
Let me applaud Warren Meyers first and foremost for coming into the devils den and assert again his opinions based on his knowledge. That is a tough thing to do. I am sure that Ron Honeycutt would have similar difficulty for coming into a group that is heavily weighted against him. But here is the point. Sites like this will draw in people like me looking for answers and in the end result based on previous experiences and from what I have seen here, nothing is accomplished.
Reasons
1) 'Global Anything" should and must keep social sciences and logic in the equation at all times in order to cover the realities of the subject.
1a) The reason for that is because all science is built upon human experience so that at the forefront it must be accounted for. Because if there is no humans, there is no science. Honeycutt's article seems to purposely avoid this reality and as such gives only a partial explanation or 'tunnel vision' point of view at best.
2) Solidifying the science of weather is one thing, but offer solid conclusions on how best to address it. It must have in it a solid understanding of not only Human Nature, but human population growth, psychology, and social accepted norms and realities. Honeycutt's article does scant addressing of this hard reality.
3) Deniers, Luke Warmers, Climate Change Promoters, are all stereotypes and affords nothing much beyond Identity Politics/categorizing. While it seems scientific, in the world humans it is mostly just degrading. It also supports the logic that people in these subgroups are stuck in a bubble.
4) When someone like myself comes to see what he can discover for himself in order to form thier own opinions, they are not looking to categorized and could generally care less about opinions.
5) A failure on Honeycutt's article should include other findings that Meyer's speaks about in his Forbes articles. Issue like Mann and good ole Uncle Sam preventing data to be retrieved so that it could be researched and duplicated. Freedom of Information Acts have to be employed in order to even get to the data that is built into the IPCC findings. Why would a neutral party buy into Honeycutt's perspective if all he did was attack Meyers and never even bother to bring this up. I am just asking here. Science should never require a FOIA.
6) Meyer's in his articles speaks about the NIPCC. Honeycutt does not bother to even mention that either. Why as a neutral party doing research would one trust his finding while at the same time he leaves this inportant section of research completely out of the subject matter that was there in Meyers articles. Nor does he state anything regarding VP Gore's actions.
7) Climate Change/Global Warming/Weather is a 4 billion dollar taxpayer funded research paycheck annually. Why is it that no one here as ever spoke about the reality that their are people who would most definetly lie about thier findings in order to get a piece of that Pie?
8) New American said that the US government will spend 22.2 billion to fight Global Warming this year alone. I am sure that all the players in this equation is on the up and up. Dont you? Why is no one here other than Meyers speaking about this. Surely any basic understanding of human nature would support that thinking and yet, Science can not be concise with those types of motivators screwing up the works. Can it?
9) When a novice looks for data and wants to learn from the ones in the know they could fair better with out all the opinions and deal only in the facts. We are, contrary to popular belief, able to understand. That is why we come to sites like this.
10) The Science is not settled in my honest opinion because of out liers that are into it for the money, and when I see this level of attacks on one side or the other, the observer cant help but think that is far from being accepted science. That, IMHO, is where we are at, and where we will stay for years to come. If you cant convince people like myself. you have no chance of convincing enough. As it stand right now, the 22.2 billion and the 4 billion research causes every US citizen on the tab for about 83.00 dollars a person for this unconvincing science just this year alone. We are simple creatures designed to see patterns and the only exact fact that can be proven to me is Change. It is the only constant in the universe that I trust.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:48 AM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Randman, I have to wonder what you use for sources. So far, the worst freezing impact event I have found for Florida citrus growers was the great freeze of 1894-95. There has not been an impact freeze event since 1989. The northern and central portion of the state saw some snow back in 2010. Snow is reported as far back as records exist, 1774. I'm quite skeptical of your Florida claims.
-
randman at 03:42 AM on 24 September 2017Was Greenland really green in the past?
MWP was global. Handwaiving it away and reconstructing a map in an effort to show it was not global isn't evidence. I will grant that, although there is evidence it was global, perhaps that's open to investigation; hence my first adament comment it was global should be rephrased.
Of course, so should all claims it was not global as well...:) -
randman at 03:11 AM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Meant to write, it's clear the sea is "not" rising. Don't see an edit button. Apologize for that.
-
randman at 03:10 AM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Eclectic, concerning some other comments on evidence: take, for example, the claims of sea level rise. Frequently, sea levels rising in a location due to the land subsiding are credited to climate change such as the case of south Florida. But the truth is they are pumping the aquifier, have dammed up and filled in wetlands and so it's clear the sea has risen rather than the land subsiding, and yet flooding is credited to climate change.
On the other hand and this is anecdotal, there is a town built in the 1500s by the Portugese where the sea walls were precisely designed to flood once per month with the highest tide. There appears to be no rise or change in sea level there in several hundreds years. I know it's anecdotal but still. We have a hard physical record of no change.
In Florida, when I was a boy you could grow orange groves in north Florida. There is a town called Orange Park, in fact. In colonial times, you could grow oranges in South Carolina: hence a town called Orangeburg. Over the few hundred years, beginning long before industrialization, the freeze line has crept further south such that now orange groves freeze at those latitudes.
So yes, that is climate change but it's not evidnece of global warming (got colder, not warme). Nor is it evidence of industrialization and production of CO2 causing this.
During the MWP and Little Ice Age, we saw much more rapid climate change prior to industrialization. Jones finally admitted that the MWP could have been global. The proponents of AGW had handwaived the MWP away insisting it was just confined to the northern hemisphere.
Some of the glaciers that melted and presumably back to prior to man's settlements, actually showed settlements underneath. The truth is none of these things are unprecedented. Back in the 30s, there were numerous published reports of the arctic melting and warnings of sea level rise but it didn't happen. There were just some very warm years around that time.
So this claim of high speed climate change is simply incorrect. We've seen much higher change in human history already.Moderator Response:[JH] If your false statement about about Orangeburg, SC is indicative, your entire post may be nothing more than a fabrication.
From Wikepedia...
European settlement in this area started in 1704 when George Sterling set up a post here for fur trade with Indians. To encourage settlement, the General Assembly of the Province of South Carolina in 1730 organized the area as a township, naming it Orangeburg for Prince William IV of Orange, the son-in-law of King George II of Great Britain.
-
randman at 02:39 AM on 24 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Eclectic, still learning to use this forum. Phil Jones (English pioneer of some note for global warming scenarious, etc,...) is the Jones I referred to, as someone else stated.
In an effort to simplify, will repeat myself a little. The consensus was that the mean from 1950-1980 was 15 degrees celsius. The prediction and warning had to do with rapid increases ABOVE 15 degrees celsius. That never happened and so no, I can't agree the planet has warmed.
No matter how many graphs, claims, adjustments, etc,.....that purport to show increases in mean global temps, unless there is a good, peer-reviewed series of papars, or at least published and discussed widely with skeptics not shouted down, it's unreasonable to accept as necessarily valid claims of warming.
Where's the beef here? I am open to why the mean from 1950-1980 was lowered retroactively from 15 degrees celsius to 14 degrees celsius but hope you can understand my skepticism. You have a group who forcefully argues a near doomsday scenario requiring massive global regulatory changes with very specific and bold predictions, and they don't happen. No years above the mean, and then the mean is lowered?
What is the basis for lowering the mean? The science behind it? Are there published papers dealing with that? Were skeptics allowed to offer pubished rebuttals? Or is this more a matter of faith? -
One Planet Only Forever at 02:23 AM on 24 September 2017It takes just 4 years to detect human warming of the oceans
The presentation of the mathematics behind determining the specific values of information presented (and detailed description of what is being presneted) can be investigated to be better understood, but it is clear in Fig.1 of the "Taking the Pulse of the Planet" Opinion Piece in Eos that the magnitude of fluctuation, or noisiness, of the Ocean Heat Content is very small compared to the Global Mean Surface Temperature (the magnitude of "GMST Linear Trend= 0.016°C ± 0.005°C/yr ; σ=0.110°C/yr" seems to indicate that the value of trend ± variation is not the 2σ value in the SkS Trend Calculator and that the σ presented is not meant to be like the σ in the 2σ value of the SkS Trend Calculator).
My way of looking at it, as an engineer I always use quick ways to test/validate analysis results or claims made, has been to experiment in the SkS Temperature Trend Calcualtor to find the range of magnitude of running mean for GMST that results in a trend line as smooth as the OHC line in Fig. 1 (the 12 month running mean of OHC).
The 60 month running mean of GMST does not look as smooth as the OHC 12 month running mean. And the 120 month running mean of GMST looks smoother than the 12 month running mean of the OHC. To me that means that it would take more than 5 times, but less than 10 times, as long a time series in the GMST to see evidence of a trend that is evident in the OHC data. The mathematical result showing a comparison of 27 years for GMST to 4 years for OHC is within the range of values that make sense to me.
-
John Hartz at 01:48 AM on 24 September 2017Scientific models saved lives from Harvey and Irma. They can from climate change too
Recommended supplemental reading:
Next-generation models revealing climate change effect on hurricanes by Richard Gray, Horizon, Sep 22, 2017
-
MA Rodger at 19:18 PM on 23 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Eclectic @452,
Indeed, the missing Randman reference @451 would not be Tom but Phil Jones (no relation) who's phone interview became part of a 1989 NYT article titled "Global Warmth In '88 Is Found To Set a Record".
-
Eclectic at 18:19 PM on 23 September 2017Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
Randman @49 , for multiple reasons I have given you a reply on the other thread where you made a contemporary similar type of question [ i.e. the "Temp Record Is Unreliable" thread ] .
-
Eclectic at 18:14 PM on 23 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Randman @451, I have replied to you on this thread, because your concern seems to be more with the reliability/accuracy of surface temperature records, rather than with the ancient "predictions" made by Hansen last century.
And probably best if you stick with "standard degrees" instead of "Fahrenheit degrees" (Fahrenheit being rather 18th Century!) .
World temperature has risen approx 1.0 degrees since the pre-industrial age [the time of Fahrenheit himself!!!] . This rise is the average of local regional rises worldwide (this being far more useful and precise way of looking at the facts, rather than the vague/diffuse and somewhat unhelpful "world's average temperature").
Yes, the Arctic rise [i.e. local anomaly rise] is much higher than the "averaged" anomaly rise of 1.0 degrees — but it does not contribute much to the total anomaly, because the Arctic area is only a small fraction of total global surface area. Nevertheless, the Arctic rise is disproportionately highly important, because of its effect on ice-melting / ocean currents / Northern Hemisphere weather events / and feedback on global warming.
Randman, you will notice that the different organizations (such as NASA, and NOAA, and the Japanese Meteorological Organisation, etc) have a preference for comparing the very latest temperatures against a variety of baselines e.g. 1950-1980 or 1970-2000 or the full 20th Century etcetera. And this makes life unnecessarily complex for non-specialists [i.e. you and me].
But I am sure you appreciate, Randman, that whatever the baselines of of reference, the world is getting much warmer and doing it very quickly (whether things are expressed in degrees Celsius / Fahrenheit / Reaumur / or whatever). Whichever labels are used and whatever human yakking goes on . . . yet the real physical world shows strong evidence of rapid warming — wherever you look! Vasts amounts of polar ice are melting; sea levels are rising ever faster; glaciers are disappearing; and plants & animals are changing their activities accordingly.
To that extent, Hansen's various projections [scenarios] of future temperature are little more than of interest to historians. Yes, they're broadly far more accurate than those of science-deniers such as Lindzen . . . but nowadays we've had nearly 30 more years of experience in seeing the reality of the "Hockey Stick" rise in global temperatures. By whichever 30 / 50 / 100 year baseline you use, the recent years of 2014 / 2015 / 2016 / and so far in 2017, have been the hottest on record i.e since around 1880 (or by proxy measurement, the hottest in the past 2000+ years).
So, global warming is pressing ahead at high speed (in geological terms). And no sign of slowing down anytime in our near future.
btw, Randman, in your post you mentioned Hansen (who is famous enough in scientific circles to be referred to as just a single name — rather like Cher and Beyonce in pop music circles!). But who is the "Jones" you mention? Presumably not the Tom Jones of yesteryear!!
-
randman at 14:38 PM on 23 September 2017Hansen's 1988 prediction was wrong
Ah, maybe someone can clear this up. What's the mean? the baseline?
59 degrees F or 15 degrees Celsius, right? The glaring omission in my mind coloring the issue of whether predictions were right or how wrong they were, etc,....is simply the fact none of the past 30 years exceeded this baseline.
Obviously then, the baseline of the mean from 1950-1980 was changed. Can someone show me the peer-review papers discussing that change and who and why it was done? -
randman at 13:24 PM on 23 September 2017New research, September 11-17, 2017
Have a question. In 1981, Hansen published a paper which includes a mean average, the baseline global surface temp, of 288 Kelvin (14.85 degrees celsius or roughly 59 degrees Farenheit) for the years 1950-1980. He testified before Congress that 3 of the hottest years were in the 80s and also stated 59 degrees was the average from 1950-1980.
Jones stated 6 of the hottest years up that point were in the 80s and listed them in 1988 and also stated that the average from 1950-1980 was "roughly 59 degrees." Of course, in the 90s, same message of more hottest years and same with the 2000s.
However, we have not seen one single year since those comments and warnings were made where the average global surface temperature exceeded 59 degrees. Just hasn't happened.
So what's up with that?
I noted some have argues the base-line doesn't mean anything but just the trend. But if the baseline of 59 degrees was accurate, then the trend has been down, not up, right? It appears that what has happened is merely retroactively lowering the mean temperature from 1950-1980, which raises some pretty serious questions.
Why? The data itself has not changed. The temperature readings didn't retroactively change. Adjusting past readings doesn't change what they actually were, right?Moderator Response:[PS] Do not repeat comments on multiple threads. This is offtopic for this thread. Regulars here use the "Comments" menu option to read comments placed on any threads. Please aquaint yourself with the comments policy on this site.
-
randman at 13:19 PM on 23 September 2017Temp record is unreliable
Have a question. In 1981, Hansen published a paper which includes a mean average, the baseline global surface temp, of 288 Kelvin (14.85 degrees celsius or roughly 59 degrees Farenheit) for the years 1950-1980. He testified before Congress that 3 of the hottest years were in the 80s and also stated 59 degrees was the average from 1950-1980.
Jones stated 6 of the hottest years up that point were in the 80s and listed them in 1988 and also stated that the average from 1950-1980 was "roughly 59 degrees." Of course, in the 90s, same message of more hottest years and same with the 2000s.
However, we have not seen one single year since those comments and warnings were made where the average global surface temperature exceeded 59 degrees. Just hasn't happened.
So what's up with that?Moderator Response:[PS] Potentially response to this topic.
-
PluviAL at 11:40 AM on 23 September 2017Remembering our dear friend Andy Skuce
Thanks for this nice comment on a worthwhile life; I will remember Andy as someone to emulate, or at least aspire so. Thank you Andy for your bright existance.
-
RedBaron at 09:57 AM on 23 September 2017Remembering our dear friend Andy Skuce
Too many people I respect died this year. It is sad. But at least Andy left a positive legacy that insures he will not only be remembered, but remembered well.
RIP
-
Paul Pukite at 09:16 AM on 23 September 2017New research, September 11-17, 2017
Lots of new research results at the upcoming AGU meeting. I will present forcing models for ENSO and QBO. The model forcing uses precise lunisolar data to match the behavior for cross-validated intervals over the instrumental record. The general model was derived from Laplace's Tidal Equations, which form the basis of all GCMs.
See you there!
-
ubrew12 at 09:01 AM on 23 September 2017Remembering our dear friend Andy Skuce
I began noticing when an article was written by Skuce. They were unusually clear in their content. Thats unusual because 'content' is no longer highly regarded in the age of facebook. You have to put time in on the front end, and request same of the reader. We put much more value in 'attitude' these days, and more's the pity. I think Skuce can rest easy knowing he did the good thing.
-
Nick Palmer at 08:22 AM on 23 September 2017Remembering our dear friend Andy Skuce
I didn't have much contact with Andy, but what I did have was valuable - he was friendly and clear. Byeee...
-
Scott0119 at 07:14 AM on 23 September 2017Al Gore got it wrong
@ moderator...is this directed at both of us or just me?
Moderator Response:[JH] Moderation complaint snipped.
Please note that posting comments here at SkS is a privilege, not a right. This privilege can be rescinded if the posting individual treats adherence to the Comments Policy as optional, rather than the mandatory condition of participating in this online forum.
Please take the time to review the policy and ensure future comments are in full compliance with it. Thanks for your understanding and compliance in this matter.
[PS] To everyone. Discuss only the science here.
[DB] Per user request, posting rights rescinded.
-
scaddenp at 06:55 AM on 23 September 2017Ocean acidification
Scrubbers are technically feasible - see the IPCC WG3 report or perhaps look at Lackner's work. After all, everyone who thinks they need a car could have one these??? Whether economically feasible or more to the point, cheaper than just transitioning from FF, is another story.
-
Scott0119 at 06:21 AM on 23 September 2017Al Gore got it wrong
@phillipe chantreau @20...wow! I guess I hit a nerve? Let me just end this by agreeing with you.."youre getting it wrong" that should end the tyraid.
Moderator Response:[PS] Enough please. This topic is for discussion of whether Al Gore got the science wrong nothing else.
-
Philippe Chantreau at 03:31 AM on 23 September 2017Al Gore got it wrong
Scott0119, you're getting it wrong. The scientific cause does not need any spokesman. There is no scientific "cause." The science is what it is. The weight of the evidence is what it is and anyone who can think who looks at the evidence will see the direction where it points. Attacks on the science are nothing but pitiful hogwash and that becomes evident after ony a few hours of researcing the subject. We're talking scientific evidence here, not courthouse BS.
Only those with unsolvable cognitive dissonance or an overwhelming emotional attachment to ideology can fail to see the reality. These people can not be convinced, no matter how hard reality will hit them on the head, because having their belief system fail is more threatening emotionally than any adverse consequence of holding said belief system.
There are powerful interests with no other preoccupation than monetary profit that are muddyying the water to obscure the public perception but they are not challenging the science in any convincing way. They use mind manpulation methods and boatloads of BS, which has now been brought to an art form, and benefit from means of dissemination unprecedented in human history. When they do science, like Exxon did for a while, they find exactly the same stuff as the independent science. It's not the science who needs a spokesman, it's us, as a society, trying to avoid some very costly and very uncontrollable changes in the physical world where we live. The kind of changes that will dwarf the costs, human, financial and others, that would be brought by a true, in depth, energy conversion.
It is rather ironic that the most strident voices in this non debate come from the richest of the rich, who essentially scream that they must have even more money, while some poorer nations are ready to make sacrifices for the sake of long term viability, even as they are the ones who can afford it the least. This world has gone far beyond anything imagined by science fiction authors of old, even in their wildest stories. People are awash in a prosperity that has no precedent, while believing that prosperity is still a goal they have to reach. A world where the richest earn more in an hour than others (not even below poverty line) do in a year, but where these richer ones can't be bothered to ensure the continued livability of the whole thing.
Meanwhile, the majority of the population is so scientifically illiterate, so unable to think quantitatively, so unaware of mind manipulation methods, that they respond to such methods with the certainty of a machine having a button pushed. Some weird cargo cult we have become...
-
RedBaron at 02:03 AM on 23 September 2017Ocean acidification
Great idea. We already have one. It’s called C4 perennial grasses in symbiosis with AMF. [1]
C4 carbon fixation - Wikipedia
C4 metabolism originated when grasses migrated from the shady forest undercanopy to more open environments,[2] where the high sunlight gave it an advantage over the C3 pathway. [3]
… Today, C4 plants represent about 5% of Earth's plant biomass and 3% of its known plant species.[4][5] Despite this scarcity, they account for about 23% of terrestrial carbon fixation.[6][7] Increasing the proportion of C4 plants on earth could assist biosequestration of CO2 and represent an important climate change avoidance strategy.
Glomalin is Key to Locking up Soil Carbon
Of course that “scrubber machine” while capable of cooling the planet: Cenozoic Expansion of Grasslands and Climatic Cooling is currently plowed, herbicided, burned, overgrazed, undergrazed, eroded, paved over and otherwise molested to the point that it basically no longer works very well. This means approximately 1/2 of emissions goes into the oceans and that's why we have ocean acidification. If we put that back in the soil where it belongs, then we solve both problems at once. Two birds with one stone. (actually a whole flock of birds but that is for a different thread)
-
Scott0119 at 01:31 AM on 23 September 2017Ocean acidification
@geo guy that should read "start cleaning the CO2 out of the atmosphere"
-
RedBaron at 01:18 AM on 23 September 2017Climate's changed before
Scott0119,
You asked, "if we completely eliminate human CO2 emissions we could send ourselves into another ice age? Or am I oversimplifying the issue?"
According to this paper published in Nature: Evolution of global temperature over the past two million years , judging by the fossil record it appears as if we are locked into continued warming for a while at least even if we stopped all fossil fuel use tomorrow. Earth 'Locked Into' Temperatures Not Seen in 2 Million Years (all else equal of course).
However, all else need not be equal. Humans being a tool using species have the ability to do great works of ecosystem healing just as easily as we can do great works of destruction. In this case it means we have the knowledge tools and capability to sequester rapidly in the agricultural soils of the world more than enough carbon to "unlock" that "locked in" scenario.
Simply eliminating fossil fuels completely won't stop AGW. We waited too late for that. Sequestering carbon in our agricultural soils world wide by itself is probably too late for that too. But doing both ? That actually can finally reverse AGW, and such draconian measures need not be necessary. We could still burn a little fossil fuels and still have some ag that isn't carbon farming. In other words if we approach this from all angles we can drop it in as a replacement to all our unsustainable systems where economically feasable and the problem would vanish...and at a net economic profit!
I have written a rough outline essay how that might work here: Can we reverse global warming?
Here is a description of both the challenges and solutions we are facing in US: Can American soil be brought back to life?
Here is the same basic concept as developed in Australia: FARMING A
CLIMATE CHANGE SOLUTIONand
Why pasture cropping is such a Big Deal
And here is the Chinese efforts and early results for the same concept:
“Grain for Green” driven land use change and carbon sequestration on the Loess Plateau, China
Executive summary:
Yes we can reverse Global Warming.
It does not require huge tax increases or expensive untested risky technologies.
It will require a three pronged approach worldwide.
- Reduce fossil fuel use by replacing energy needs with as many feasible renewables as current technology allows.
- Change Agricultural methods to high yielding regenerative models of production made possible by recent biological & agricultural science advancements.
- Large scale ecosystem recovery projects similar to the Loess Plateau project, National Parks like Yellowstone etc. where appropriate and applicable.
Either way though, a glaciation event is not in any forseeable future. Quite the opposite problem.
-
Scott0119 at 01:06 AM on 23 September 2017Ocean acidification
@geo guy @13. Concerning scrubbers. Would it be possible to to put scrubbers to use around the world to start cleaning the air in the atmosphere? Is that even feasible?
-
Eclectic at 22:01 PM on 22 September 2017Climate's changed before
Scott0119 @574 etcetera : Quite so. There's no such thing as a stupid question per se, yet a poorly-worded question may give the impression that the questioner is being disingenuous or subpontine in intent. Especially so, in the context of making contemporary statements in other threads, giving a similar impression.
Cast your mind back to your School days, Scott, and you will recall that you were expected to do your basic homework. And picture what your Science teacher's opinion of you would have been, if you had skipped doing your homework, and you had then declared that you "were not yet convinced that the globe is round". Or if you had expressed similar baseless doubts about similar well-established facts.
Do your basic homework first, and then you will be able to ask intelligent questions. That makes for the most efficient use of your time. SkepticalScience is an excellent (indeed, award-winning) repository of scientific information. Read. Think. And you will find there are very few questions that you need to ask. Any clarifications needed — and excellent teachers such as Scaddenp are happy to help answer a genuine question arising from your "homework".
-
Kevin C at 20:59 PM on 22 September 2017It takes just 4 years to detect human warming of the oceans
Barry @ 9:
It looks to me also like the uncertainty on the GMST trend is wrong. I can get a value in the same ballpark (but not the same as) theirs by leaving out the autocorrelation.
This makes no difference to the calculation in the opinion piece, since they do not use that value. However the trend uncertainty is itself derived from the value of sigma - I need to think about the implications of that.
-
Scott0119 at 19:58 PM on 22 September 2017Climate's changed before
@ eclectic@572. "clearly" that is why I am here. I know these questions may seem uneducated but if memory serves from my School years if you don't know something ask.
@ scaddenp @573 thank you for your answer. You seem to have a grasp on teaching.
-
scaddenp at 12:14 PM on 22 September 2017Climate's changed before
If we completely eliminate CO2 emissions, CO2 concentrations and temperature will continue to rise for some time, because once temperature starts to rise by any cause, all the natural feedbacks that amplify the ice-age cycle still cut in. Detail on our commitments here though carbon-cycle feedbacks are still major research topic. Because they are slow (hundreds of years), they dont affect our immediate future.
CO2 that we have already emitted stays there. There are very slow processes (millions of years) that gradually pull CO2 from the atmosphere. If we every needed to warm the planet, then very easy to make extremely powerful GHGs that would warm the planet again far more efficiently than CO2, but on those long time scales, you have to remember the changes in the sun too. Too many generations away for me to be much concerned.
Couldnt agree more about danger of humans interfering with mother nature. Our unplanned change in atmosphere concentration is biting us.
-
It takes just 4 years to detect human warming of the oceans
Fool @ 7:
The "science" correspondents in almost all the media are hopeless. Even the better of them were putting the recent hurricanes down to AGW without caveats.
The only one I take any notice of is Peter Highfield, late of the BBC and other outlets, who puts out YouTube talks under the name Potholer54: masterly understatements and full of links to the relevant papers - unlike the deniers who just "know" their alternative facts are common sense right.
-
Eclectic at 11:21 AM on 22 September 2017Climate's changed before
Scott0119 @571 , clearly you need to do a lot more reading to educate yourself on climate matters. Undertake some "science 101" basic education. Examples : read the climate science summaries on the websites of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences; of the U.K. Royal Society; of NASA; of NOAA; of the American Geophysical Union; of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences; or of other Societies of eminent scientists. If you prefer a more piecemeal approach, then select a few of the Climate Myths (see via the top/left corner of the SkepticalScience home page) — and read a number of them that interest you particularly [like with delving into a dictionary, you will soon find "nearby items" which will also interest you].
The "truth" which you quote may be less "immutable" than you think : but you are certainly correct that "human intervention on mother nature" [by injecting 100's of Gigatons of fossil-origin CO2 into our atmosphere] is definitely proving to be dangerous. It is high time that we all woke up to that !
-
Eclectic at 10:28 AM on 22 September 2017It takes just 4 years to detect human warming of the oceans
Barry @8 and @9, "What you are missing" is the bigger picture.
The GMST warming trend you quote [of 0.016 degrees per year] may be plus or minus a particular "uncertainty" figure — but do you not think it would be crazy to therefore deduce that "There is nothing going on" / "Move along folks ... nothing to see here" ?
Take a common sense look at the bigger picture — since whether the expressed numerical uncertainties be tenths or thousandths of a degree, yet the polar ice is still melting away and the sea level is rising and glaciers are disappearing and plants & animals are changing their activities accordingly. The world is really changing — regardless of any "viewed-through-a-narrow-straw" type of blinkered assessment.
In overall terms, Pielke ( +/_ one generation ! ) is wrong-headed.
-
Scott0119 at 09:43 AM on 22 September 2017Climate's changed before
Scaddenp, so what you are saying is if we completely eliminate human CO2 emissions we could send ourselves into another ice age? Or am I oversimplifying the issue? If there is one immutable truth it would be that human intervention on mother nature is usually dangerous.
-
barry1487 at 09:39 AM on 22 September 2017It takes just 4 years to detect human warming of the oceans
John,
Is the GMST uncertainy for the period 2004-2015 in the opinion piece correct?
0.016°C ± 0.005°C per year
GISS has the same trend, but an uncertainty of 0.021.
What am I missing?
-
barry1487 at 09:35 AM on 22 September 2017It takes just 4 years to detect human warming of the oceans
scaddenp @ 3,
Pielke Snr has been consistent on OHC being the best metric. He hasn't "stopped beating that drum."
Pielke Snr 2017: "Ocean heat content changes is, by far, the much better way to assess global warming. Ocean heat changes can be much more directly related to the radiative imbalance at the top of our atmosphere."
Nor did he limit that to the upper 750 meters.
"To be able to predict future climate change, in principle, it is necessary to be able to evaluate the actual current and future heating of the climate system from anthropogenic and natural sources as well as to evaluate where this heating is accumulating. For example, heat could be stored in the ocean at depths greater than 3 km (where observations were not reported in the Levitus et al. studies), instead of lost to space..."
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-84-3-331
You may be thinking of his comments on OHC papers which were about the upper 300/700/750 meters.
When he was blogging this view some years back, he tended to get criticism for it by those who (usually rightly) deconstructed 'skeptic' arguments. His papers don't rate a mention in the opinion piece linked above. I remember those to and fros, and it's disappointing that his earlier work has been sidelined in this recent opinion.
The time period assessed in the opinion piece seems way too short. 12 years? Better to do multiple series of that length than just one.
The GMST trend uncertainty for the period (2004-2015) is just wrong. They get a trend of 0.016°C ± 0.005°C per year. In all global surface data sets the uncertainty is larger than the trend for that period.
Possibly a typo, but as it appears twice, it doesn't give me much confidence in the piece in general.
-
scaddenp at 09:26 AM on 22 September 2017Climate's changed before
Scott, the first important thing to understand is that climate is a reflection of the energy balance. If that changes for any reason, climate changes. Climate does not change by itself. CO2 was much much higher in the past, but the sun was fainter. We only got polar caps when CO2 dropped below a level for it to get cold enough. In the Pleistocene, CO2 dropped to point where the slow orbital cycles (Milankovich cycles) could drive an ice-age cycle due to variations in insolation happening at around 65N. Before that (the last time we had CO2 above 400ppm), you had icecaps but not ice ages.
Could they melt again? They will. The sun as a mainline star, is very slowly increasing its output and has been doing so since formation. At some point, a billion or so years into future, it will be too hot for liquid water. Eventually, as its fuel is exhausted, the sun will expand and probably consume all the inner planets - 5 billion years into future from memory.
A volcanic eruption on the scale of the Deccan traps could also push so much CO2 out that it warms the climate though that might be the least of our worries.
-
Scott0119 at 09:20 AM on 22 September 2017Al Gore got it wrong
I really can't think of a worse spokesman for a scientific cause than a politician.
Prev 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 Next
