Science Rant, Not politics: Can CO2 cause "Climate Change?"

[Bubba]

This probably won't help, Bubba, but whatever...

Actually, that does help. Now, another question. With what degree of accuracy can we say that the starting point millennia ago was -4.whatever? Could it not have been colder?

[rogman]

Bubba, going back more than a few hundred years there aren't direct measurements (but those old thermometers were very accurate and didn't go out of cal). Instead they use proxies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proxy_(climate)

[freeski]

I can look at an ice core from 5,000 years ago and determine that at some point in that location it was below 32F.

[Coydog]

I can look at an ice core from 5,000 years ago and determine that at some point in that location it was below 32F.

Most skeptics would deny that.

[Streamtracker]

A couple of serious questions: How much of the warming we have seen is natural and what is the cause?

Do not have time to go into detail or give this a good edit. First you need to specify a time period. Since about 1900, 10% of the warming has been due to changes in solar output. During approximately the last 35 years of more rapid warming, the solar output has declined slightly. So, it can not explain the warming.

If you look at the record from year to year, the ups and downs of the ascending record, the dips are typically due to volcanic activity and peaks are typically due to the oceans dumping heat into the atmosphere (El Nino/La Nina cycle). Looking closely at the record the trend is for El Nino year peaks to be higher and higher on average. That's because the El Nino is riding on top of the overall warming trend. Typically after strong El Nino years we expect a few years were the temperature declines and then resumes an upward climb.

Please note that the cycle does not contribute to overall warming since it is simply shifting heat around that has already been captured in the ocean - that increased heating of the ocean is primarily caused by green house gases (CO2, methane, etc.)

The graph shows the pattern of overall warming since 1965 and the influence of the ENSO cycle (El Nino, La Nina cycle) and major volcanic eruptions.

I'd like to go back way further in time than 1900. Since much of my skepticism results from the fact (or at least the logical conclusion) that the planet has been warming since the middle of the last ice age, albeit with colder periods and warmer periods mixed in over the millennia, what causes the planet to alternatively warm then cool longer term producing ice ages and warming/cooling periods?

The ice cycles are triggered by small changes in the earth path around the sun and its tilt. These cause small changes in the amount of solar radiation which then are multiplied by other factors like CO2 being released from biological geological systems or the opposite.

Concern about current climate change is not that it hasn't occurred in the past, it has to do with rate (fast rates makes it very hard for both living systems and human system to adapt.)

[Streamtracker]

Somebody count up the times ST has used SkepticalScience.com as his source.. "a well-referenced source"...remember to laugh every time.
Could have shortened the whole thing to an abbreviated sentence from the last paragraph: " I do not think..."

I use Skeptical science because most people reading this do no have access to the primary literature. So, if I post a link to a journal most will not have access. Skeptical Science does a really good job of referencing the primary literature and explaining it at various levels of complexity. As a scientist who know the literature, I find they do a very good job at getting the science correct. My numerous climate scientists co-workers agree.

When I post an article to Skeptical Science instead of saying "remember to laugh every time", how about picking apart the science in their articles and providing your own peer-reviewed references.

The last one I posted was about the satellite record and issues concerning uncertainty. How about addressing each of the points they make and explaining why you disagree. I explained a few of the issues I have with Briggs. Instead of your typically insulting and personal attacks on me and scientists in general, how about a little more relevant science.

Skeptical Science again for the reasons I stated. https://www.skepticalscience.com/satell ... vanced.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is a link to the most advanced version covering the general topic of satellites and the temp monitoring.

Read this and you will find that Sgt. has other points of misunderstanding about it. He claims 100% coverage - what he failed to report or does not understand is that although the data collected is 100% coverage over a three day period, the useful data does not extend to the poles because of issues with ice melt pools and sea ice that make the readings very inaccurate at the poles. So to make it clear, neither method has 100% coverage.

He also confuses products - the geographic coverage product he posted and overall total global trend are not calculated exactly the same. Because of this it show 0% coverage for geographic areas that have coverage for the overall trend. There are thermometers in the regions shown as blank, but not enough for relative small area geographic estimates.

So previously he stated that the surface temp record people can't be trusted because they use a product with less than 100% coverage. Now that he know that the same is true for satellites, does he feel that way about UHA and RSS satellite researchers? Are they also untrustworthy?

[Streamtracker]

I can look at an ice core from 5,000 years ago and determine that at some point in that location it was below 32F.

Clearly you have no training in isotopic ratio analyses and how it can be used for a better estimate than that.

[E O Eleven]

[freeski]

d18O I used to take classes from W. Berry Lyons. Back then ozone was the worry.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

The ice cycles are triggered by small changes in the earth path around the sun and its tilt. These cause small changes in the amount of solar radiation which then are multiplied by other factors like CO2 being released from biological geological systems or the opposite.

Concern about current climate change is not that it hasn't occurred in the past, it has to do with rate (fast rates makes it very hard for both living systems and human system to adapt.)

Again your typical silliness. You make a statement that infers that we KNOW how "ice cycles" are triggered. A true scientist would never make a statement like that. In case you were not aware the Milankovitch cycles theory is a THEORY. And there are lots of other theories about drivers for glaciation events (like Svensmark's hypothesis). NO ONE should be certain of the cause of these cycles... not even close to certain. There is absolutely no evidence that CO2 has EVER been a significant DRIVER of climate change.

Any sane human looking at high resolution proxies of past climate (like Greenland ice core records) laugh at the claim that the current current warming is "unprecedented."

gisp-last-10000-new.png (158.47 KiB) Viewed 710 times

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Somebody count up the times ST has used SkepticalScience.com as his source.. "a well-referenced source"...remember to laugh every time.
Could have shortened the whole thing to an abbreviated sentence from the last paragraph: " I do not think..."

I use Skeptical science because most people reading this do no have access to the primary literature. So, if I post a link to a journal most will not have access. Skeptical Science does a really good job of referencing the primary literature and explaining it at various levels of complexity. As a scientist who know the literature, I find they do a very good job at getting the science correct. My numerous climate scientists co-workers agree.

When I post an article to Skeptical Science instead of saying "remember to laugh every time", how about picking apart the science in their articles and providing your own peer-reviewed references.

The last one I posted was about the satellite record and issues concerning uncertainty. How about addressing each of the points they make and explaining why you disagree. I explained a few of the issues I have with Briggs. Instead of your typically insulting and personal attacks on me and scientists in general, how about a little more relevant science.

Skeptical Science again for the reasons I stated. https://www.skepticalscience.com/satell ... vanced.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This is a link to the most advanced version covering the general topic of satellites and the temp monitoring.

Read this and you will find that Sgt. has other points of misunderstanding about it. He claims 100% coverage - what he failed to report or does not understand is that although the data collected is 100% coverage over a three day period, the useful data does not extend to the poles because of issues with ice melt pools and sea ice that make the readings very inaccurate at the poles. So to make it clear, neither method has 100% coverage.

He also confuses products - the geographic coverage product he posted and overall total global trend are not calculated exactly the same. Because of this it show 0% coverage for geographic areas that have coverage for the overall trend. There are thermometers in the regions shown as blank, but not enough for relative small area geographic estimates.

So previously he stated that the surface temp record people can't be trusted because they use a product with less than 100% coverage. Now that he know that the same is true for satellites, does he feel that way about UHA and RSS satellite researchers? Are they also untrustworthy?

So fine...you somehow trust Skeptical Science an activist blog written by a cartoonist http://www.populartechnology.net/2012/0 ... ience.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

..but mock scientists like Roy Spencer who makes his living measuring climate data. The satellite data sets both substantially agree AND agree with weather balloon data (less comprehensive but a very good quality control tool which uses a very different technique to measure atmospheric temperatures) It is quite significant that the satellite approach produces data (with whatever its purported flaws) which is in close agreement with balloon data (using a very different technique.)

I'll let Dr. Spencer give his narrative on the reliability of satellite vs surface thermometer data...this comment was made during 2014 in response to projections, confirmed, that the ground-based data metrics would claim 2014 to be the "warmest year ever":

"Much is being made of the “global” surface thermometer data, which three-quarters the way through 2014 is now suggesting the global average this year will be the warmest in the modern instrumental record.

I claim 2014 won’t be the warmest global-average year on record.

..if for no other reason than this: thermometers cannot measure global averages — only satellites can. The satellite instruments measure nearly every cubic kilometer – hell, every cubic inch — of the lower atmosphere on a daily basis. You can travel hundreds if not thousands of kilometers without finding a thermometer nearby.

(And even if 2014 or 2015 turns out to be the warmest, this is not a cause for concern…more about that later).

The two main research groups tracking global lower-tropospheric temperatures (our UAH group, and the Remote Sensing Systems [RSS] group) show 2014 lagging significantly behind 2010 and especially 1998:

With only 3 months left in the year, there is no realistic way for 2014 to set a record in the satellite data.

Granted, the satellites are less good at sampling right near the poles, but compared to the very sparse data from the thermometer network we are in fat city coverage-wise with the satellite data.

In my opinion, though, a bigger problem than the spotty sampling of the thermometer data is the endless adjustment game applied to the thermometer data. The thermometer network is made up of a patchwork of non-research quality instruments that were never made to monitor long-term temperature changes to tenths or hundredths of a degree, and the huge data voids around the world are either ignored or in-filled with fictitious data.

Furthermore, land-based thermometers are placed where people live, and people build stuff, often replacing cooling vegetation with manmade structures that cause an artificial warming (urban heat island, UHI) effect right around the thermometer. The data adjustment processes in place cannot reliably remove the UHI effect because it can’t be distinguished from real global warming.

Satellite microwave radiometers, however, are equipped with laboratory-calibrated platinum resistance thermometers, which have demonstrated stability to thousandths of a degree over many years, and which are used to continuously calibrate the satellite instruments once every 8 seconds. The satellite measurements still have residual calibration effects that must be adjusted for, but these are usually on the order of hundredths of a degree, rather than tenths or whole degrees in the case of ground-based thermometers.

And, it is of continuing amusement to us that the global warming skeptic community now tracks the RSS satellite product rather than our UAH dataset. RSS was originally supposed to provide a quality check on our product (a worthy and necessary goal) and was heralded by the global warming alarmist community. But since RSS shows a slight cooling trend since the 1998 super El Nino, and the UAH dataset doesn’t, it is more referenced by the skeptic community now. Too funny.

In the meantime, the alarmists will continue to use the outdated, spotty, and heavily-massaged thermometer data to support their case. For a group that trumpets the high-tech climate modeling effort used to guide energy policy — models which have failed to forecast (or even hindcast!) the lack of warming in recent years — they sure do cling bitterly to whatever will support their case.

As British economist Ronald Coase once said, “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.”

So, why are the surface thermometer data used to the exclusion of our best technology — satellites — when tracking global temperatures? Because they better support the narrative of a dangerously warming planet."

Yup!

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Breaking News: A NOAA whistle-blower just retired and decided to expose the FRAUD that happens there. Activists claiming to be scientists abuse the scientific process and trust from the general public...in the interest of promoting a political agenda.

Exposed: How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z4XlWgDL48" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"The Mail on Sunday today reveals astonishing evidence that the organisation that is the world’s leading source of climate data rushed to publish a landmark paper that exaggerated global warming and was timed to influence the historic Paris Agreement on climate change.

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.

But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

It was never subjected to NOAA’s rigorous internal evaluation process – which Dr Bates devised.

His vehement objections to the publication of the faulty data were overridden by his NOAA superiors in what he describes as a ‘blatant attempt to intensify the impact’ of what became known as the Pausebuster paper."

...and more!

0000NOAA.jpg (61.92 KiB) Viewed 672 times

[Coydog]

In the meantime, the alarmists will continue to use the outdated, spotty, and heavily-massaged thermometer data to support their case. For a group that trumpets the high-tech climate modeling effort used to guide energy policy — models which have failed to forecast (or even hindcast!) the lack of warming in recent years — they sure do cling bitterly to whatever will support their case.

As British economist Ronald Coase once said, “If you torture the data long enough, it will confess to anything.”

So, why are the surface thermometer data used to the exclusion of our best technology — satellites — when tracking global temperatures? Because they better support the narrative of a dangerously warming planet."

Yup!

Always have to chuckle when the good Doctor Roy spouts off about "heavily-massaged thermometer data" when is own satellite data set has undergone nearly a dozen alterations to date. His latest version, UAH v6.0, has been in beta for nearly two years now.

[madhatter]

[Coydog]

Excellent summation of the far right's argument on climate change - absurd tangents.