Scientists jumping off the warming train

[MattSimmons]

Hello,

I have flicked through the pages of this thread. I don't think I am repeating anything, and would like to respond to this,

I've seen that mentioned before, but haven't seen any actual scientific citations for the claims for a anthropogenic global cooling hypotheses from years past.

I believe it is difficult to find peer-reviewed papers of the cooling claims. However, I thought you might find this interesting,

NASA scientist James E. Hansen, who has publicly criticized the Bush administration for dragging its feet on climate change and labeled skeptics of man-made global warming as distracting "court jesters," appears in a 1971 Washington Post article that warns of an impending ice age within 50 years.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/

Matt.

 

[MattSimmons]

Climate reasearch is a million dollar industry. No-climate change is not.

But I would like to hear from anyone with who has given thought to how advocating climate change benefits the UN powers-that-be. UN member nations have their own self interests, but the relatively long term bureaucrats have their own. I would like to know about these guys. The motivation seems straight forward to me, but I don't want to introduce bias before hearing others.

Hello,

A number of things spring to mind, not least the global control of energy!

Carbon has become a new currency (which is a shame, since it's CO2 that's causing the "problem"). The gold standard was removed I think by Nixon in '71, finally? Although the process started long before.

By denying less developed countries the ability to use the traditional infrastructure we built for them over the last 40 years - and got them into debt by building for them - are we not now telling those countries that they must buy renewable technologies from us, using a new system of debt?

Controversial, but since we know that all developed countries used CO2-intensive energy sources to "develop", I can't help thinking we are now trying to deny others that option!

Matt.

 

[NeoDevin]

Whether you accept it as a valid source or not I would not know but it appears to be the only posting on the topic that isn't a conservative blog.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/...es-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/

I'm not familiar enough with the metrics they're using on that blog to comment on it's accuracy, but I don't think blogs are acceptable sources on this forum. I'll look more into it when I have some free time.

 

[NeoDevin]

Is the planet warming due to human contribution? That would be a direct question. Do you have evidence to support an answer?

How about the IPCC report? If you disagree with what's presented in it, make your arguments. So far I haven't seen one valid argument against it.

Also, as Cyrus said: Learn the difference between weather and climate.

 

[MattSimmons]

I'm not familiar enough with the metrics they're using on that blog to comment on it's accuracy, but I don't think blogs are acceptable sources on this forum. I'll look more into it when I have some free time.

Hello,

Interesting re: "acceptable" sources! Point taken.

That said, Anthony Watts has been reviewing the data for a long time, and his blog is certainly worth reading for anyone interested in balancing a sceptical view with that of the mainstream.

He is not the only contributor to "wattsupwiththat", and some of the contributors are practising climate scientists.

Matt.

 

[LowlyPion]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/sep/19/inside-the-beltway-69748548/

Matt.

Sorry Matt, but I don't consider the Washington Times as anything but a right wing agenda propaganda outlet like Fox. And Hansen is on the right wing hit list after having the temerity to articulate his findings that are counter to that agenda. (Kind of like Copernicus and Galileo were on the outs with the Vatican a few centuries back.) Whatever personal attacks the Washington Times would support about Hansen, I simply can't attach much weight if any at all.

Besides, 1971 ... ? Maybe he was smoking pot too? Maybe he had pimples? Whatever ... I think everyone can agree that in the last 37 years there is a wee bit more climatological data at our disposal. How prescient must Hansen have been 37 years ago to have his conclusions be considered seriously today?

 

[MattSimmons]

MattSimmons, do you know if there is a peer reviewed article which backs up the claims made in the blog post you linked to?

Nope! Sorry - I did check. Just thought it was interesting, thought people here might find it interesting too, since there was a discussion going on.

Hope I didn't upset anyone or break any forum rules!

 

[Evo]

I'm not familiar enough with the metrics they're using on that blog to comment on it's accuracy, but I don't think blogs are acceptable sources on this forum. I'll look more into it when I have some free time.

Blogs are acceptable in P&WA.

 

[Evo]

I couldn't care less.

And speaking of economists, here's an article you linked, earlier in this thread, in this post. It says:
Dr. Pachauri has PhDs in Economics and Industrial Engineering. He taught Economics at NC State as an Asst. Prof. and then as visiting faculty.

But hey, he's a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, and McKitrick is an impartial expert.

It's easy to attach labels.

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, is the friend of James Hansen, the Global Alarmist. Were you mistaking him as being a friend of McKitrick's?

I do agree with you that the chairman of the IPCC has no qualifications in climate science.

 

[MattSimmons]

Sorry Matt, but I don't consider the Washington Times as anything but a right wing agenda propaganda outlet like Fox. And Hansen is on the right wing hit list after having the temerity to articulate his findings that are counter to that agenda. (Kind of like Copernicus and Galileo were on the outs with the Vatican a few centuries back.) Whatever personal attacks the Washington Times would support about Hansen, I simply can't attach much weight if any at all.

Besides, 1971 ... ? Maybe he was smoking pot too? Maybe he had pimples? Whatever ... I think everyone can agree that in the last 37 years there is a wee bit more climatological data at our disposal. How prescient must Hansen have been 37 years ago to have his conclusions be considered seriously today?

Hello,

Lol! Yeah I guess anything was possible back then :)

On the "right-wing outlet"... I personally think it's a little 20th Century to distinguish between right and left, but since we are, are you aware that Hansen has received money from a left wing "http://www.heinzawards.net/news/james_hansen_internationallyknown_climate_scientist_received_a_29th_annual_common_wealth_award_of_distinguished_service"" with political ties?

I also think his flying to the UK to support in a court of law the people who vandalised the Kingsnorth power station is a little excessive, considering the (peer-reviewed) evidence available from the likes of http://www.ukcip.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=322&Itemid=9#08" on the temperature record - compare 1934 and 1998). Also, is there any peer-reviewed evidence for his claim that Kingsnorth will be directly responsible for the extinction of up to 400 species?

Considering the Socialist Workers Party in the UK are behind most climate protests, and had at least a significant presence at Kingsnorth, one has to wonder what a NASA scientist was doing at this hearing.

Anyway I'm here to learn about physics, not debate climate change; I don't have a denier agenda, so let me just state that I'm not a "denier" (my position is, CO2 causes warming, but we have yet to determine how much, or what the effects will be) although I am sceptical, for the reasons outlined here, and more, but I'm not here to argue and I don't want to be branded. Perhaps it's best if I politely bow out of this conversation - I'm new here and don't want to upset anyone! :)

Matt.

 

[MattSimmons]

Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, is the friend of James Hansen, the Global Alarmist. Were you mistaking him as being a friend of McKitrick's?

I do agree with you that the chairman of the IPCC has no qualifications in climate science.

He must be quite clever, though - he seems to have gotten a degree and two PhDs in around 6 years, see http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/bios/pachauri.htm

 

[drankin]

Global warming deals with climate change.

The climate is long term changes in the atmosphere.

Weather is short term atmospheric conditions.

At the very least, know what climate means drankin.

I know what climate means, and the weather will reflect the climate on average, will it not?

 

[Evo]

I know what climate means, and the weather will reflect the climate on average, will it not?

Yes, climate is weather over a period of time.

Merriam Webster

Climate - the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/climate

 

[LowlyPion]

That's good then. I'll look forward to seeing the politics of it and the ad hominem questions about those pointing out the science of it removed from actually considering the science of it.

The bandwagon premise of scientists clinging to or jumping off as regards to climate trends and AGW is a pale substitute for the real thing - convincing science.

As to the science of it, let's hope you grasp a better understanding of what you extract, if you are going to draw useful conclusions.

(1mm sea level rise over 100 years, less than 1oC temp rise, no increased rainfall pattern since 1766;...)

I note that the 1mm is a yearly rate that you apparently confuse with a century long total and at that even this result is attenuated by the rise in land mass for northern England. Looking at the sea level trends at Liverpool for instance reveals a slightly steeper slope in sea level increases than at Aberdeen in Scotland, where land is rising along with sea levels.

 

[MattSimmons]

I note that the 1mm is a yearly rate that you apparently confuse with a century long total and at that even this result is attenuated by the rise in land mass for northern England. Looking at the sea level trends at Liverpool for instance reveals a slightly steeper slope in sea level increases than at Aberdeen in Scotland, where land is rising along with sea levels.

Please forgive me for my error. A quote from the link I posted:

Global sea-level rise has accelerated between mid-19th century and mid-20th century, and is now about 3mm per year. It is likely that human activities have contributed between a quarter and a half of the rise in the last half of the 20th century.

I read from this that the UK Met Office and Hadley Centre, themselves also quoting IPCC AR4-WG1, believe that the SLR attributable to mankind has reached about 3/4mm to 1.5mm per year.

 

[Art]

Yes, climate is weather over a period of time.

Merriam Webster

Climate - the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/climate

Unless of course there is an unusual rise in temperature one year in which case it's climate change. Only decreases in temperature are classified as weather.

 

[Gokul43201]

I do agree with you that the chairman of the IPCC has no qualifications in climate science.

Please do not misrepresent my posts.

Thanks.

 

[Evo]

Please do not misrepresent my posts.

Thanks.

Then don't write confusing posts. What did you mean?

 

[LowlyPion]

Unless of course there is an unusual rise in temperature one year in which case it's climate change. Only decreases in temperature are classified as weather.

That looks like a good operating premise.

 

[NeoDevin]

Blogs are acceptable in P&WA.

Thanks for clarifying, I wasn't sure.

 

[NeoDevin]

MattSimmons,

As I said, I'm not up to speed on all the topics covered in the blog post you linked to, but one of my friends (who is better informed on the subject than I, I only got into the debate as of this discussion, and am still learning) sent this reply (edited only to remove a name):

Anthony Watts is completely inept at data analysis; he's done things like plot different anomaly graphs (from different baselines) on the same axis, correlate time with time, and lovingly publish analyses that turn graphs upside down and claim the trend reversed. On one of his deceptions, which was supposedly "peer reviewed", I spotted the critical error within twenty seconds, and [other friend] got it within fifteen. (One of my friends at the U of T, in the social sciences, figured it out quickly too once I gave him the relevant terminology.)

As for this particular one, he's confusing weather and climate (note the lack of trendlines and how he uses only one year instead of the thirty that the WMO and IPCC use; incidentally the first dataset he uses goes back to 1850 but he only plots the last 20 years.), assuming the anthropogenic global warming theory says that CO2 is the only influence (which is dead wrong; what's missing from that graph is that late 2007 and early 2008 were a particularly strong La Nina, which shuffled heat away from the measurable surface. 1998 was a very strong El Nino, the exact opposite, and is a favorite of Watts to start his trendlines in), and lying through his teeth (what would his analysis method have said if he had done this in 1998? It could have been as high as +0.446!).

This denier meme, also sometimes known as "January 2008 wiped out a century's worth of warming!" (DailyTech and similar denialist sites) or the Very Little Ice Age (those who can understand the difference between weather and climate). The silly part is, just as predicted, the temperature rose after January (such that if January "wiped out a century's worth of warming", March could have been said to have "warmed as much as the past century!".). http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/nasa-ice-age.jpg shows what I mean. (Note that this isn't too significant on its own either; it just showed the La Nina fading and removing its masking effect from the temperature trends.)

It's ironic that you'd send this to me today, by the way: Look what the UK Met Office (where Watts plotted his first dataset from) just released. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html

For more amusing stuff on Watts, here's the links to support all of my claims from the
first paragraph:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/how-not-to-analyze-data-part-1/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/how-not-to-analyze-data-part-deux/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/01/how-not-to-analyze-data-part-3/
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/how-not-to-analyze-data-part-4-lies-damned-lies-and-anthony-watts/

 

[NeoDevin]

Evo, you've still ignored my points. Do you have any specific objections to the IPCC report (such as they were "picking and choosing" their data) with a source to back it up (that isn't taken out of context)?

 

[Evo]

Evo, you've still ignored my points. Do you have any specific objections to the IPCC report (such as they were "picking and choosing" their data) with a source to back it up (that isn't taken out of context)?

I'm working and no time to go through them yet. Did you read all of the Report I linked to showing how what was allowed was picked?

 

[NeoDevin]

I'm working and no time to go through them yet.

Fair enough, given your other responses in this thread, I assumed you were ignoring them. I apologize.

Did you read all of the Report I linked to showing how what was allowed was picked?

You mean the comments page on the first draft of chapter 1 of the report? I already explained why the comment you took out of context (out of context because you were implying that it referred to the report as a whole, rather than only the first chapter: "Historical Overview of Climate Change Science") from that page has nothing to do with picking and choosing data with a bias. That comment was about not including sufficient historical overview of the biogeochemical studies which had been done in the past, not about not taking them into account when drawing conclusions (they clearly were taken into account, chapter 7 is entirely on the subject).

 

[drankin]

This is just an article from foxnews (so many of you will disregard it out of hand) but it does discuss how hype reported as fact is not in the best interest of the scientific community.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html"

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

MattSimmons,

As I said, I'm not up to speed on all the topics covered in the blog post you linked to, but one of my friends (who is better informed on the subject than I, I only got into the debate as of this discussion, and am still learning) sent this reply (edited only to remove a name):

If you mean the wattsupwiththat article, I am actually the one who posted it (no worries on the confusion, I do it myself sometimes).

I only posted the blog since I couldn't quickly find an actual news story, only articles on right wing blogs and places like InfoWars, but I knew I had heard something of the like in the news. That one was the only I found that did not seem to have a political agenda attached. I only meant to show that Drankin's anecdotal evidence has been echoed in media lately regardless of it's accuracy.
Thank you for the criticism of the article from your friend.

 

[G01]

Interesting, but I don't think this sheds any light on the truth behind global warming.

In my opinion, both sides of the global warming debate have become so politicized that neither can be trusted.

 

[LowlyPion]

This is just an article from foxnews (so many of you will disregard it out of hand) but it does discuss how hype reported as fact is not in the best interest of the scientific community.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468084,00.html"

That article is easily dismissed. It's just as dishonest as he accuses the AP of being. That's just the kind of hypocrisy that Roger Ailes traffics in. One need look no further than the past election cycle for ample evidence of slanted and biased presentation to further their causes.

For instance - note the focus on the Arctic Ice melting and their clever debunking of sea level change as if refuted by 4th grade science. The fact of the matter is that the most dangerous effects come in the Northern Hemisphere from the melting of the Greenland Ice sheet - not currently floating in the 4th Grade glass of water.

And the reports I've seen from that is that it is accelerating. (IPCC 2007 Report?). The melting of the Greenland ice may have a profound effect measured in more than mm's. Something like 7 meters is it to sea level as calculated by I think the 2001 IPCC Report?

Trivializing the issues and presenting uninformed science serves no public service that I can see but to foster some kind of skepticism with their misrepresentation to further their far right political agenda. They should be ashamed to attempt to obfuscate and retard awareness and actions to attenuate the bad outcomes for the planet.

 

[mheslep]

That article is easily dismissed. It's just as dishonest as he accuses the AP of being. That's just the kind of hypocrisy that Roger Ailes traffics in. One need look no further than the past election cycle for ample evidence of slanted and biased presentation to further their causes.

For instance - note the focus on the Arctic Ice melting and their clever debunking of sea level change as if refuted by 4th grade science. The fact of the matter is that the most dangerous effects come in the Northern Hemisphere from the melting of the Greenland Ice sheet - not currently floating in the 4th Grade glass of water.

The focus on Artic ice melt directly causing sea level rise comes from the AP science writer, not from Fox. This Fox piece quotes various scientists criticizing the AP writer specifically for saying the "...Arctic ice melt will be amplified so that ominous sea level rise will occur sooner than they expected..." which does indeed invite a 4th grade science lesson.

And the reports I've seen from that is that it is accelerating. (IPCC 2007 Report?). The melting of the Greenland ice may have a profound effect measured in more than mm's. Something like 7 meters is it to sea level as calculated by I think the 2001 IPCC Report?

7 meters? That's only if the entire Greenland ice mass was to be totally liquefied, which the IPCC does not predict even worst case for any time period. The IPCC 2001 sea level worst case sea level rise is ~0.9m by 2100, nominal case 0.4m.
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/CLIMATE/IPCC_TAR/WG1/429.htm

Trivializing the issues and presenting uninformed science serves no public service that I can see but to foster some kind of skepticism with their misrepresentation to further their far right political agenda. They should be ashamed to attempt to obfuscate and retard awareness and actions to attenuate the bad outcomes for the planet.

Good advice here too.

 

[Proton Soup]

the world didn't come to an end the last time Greenland was Green. bring it on.

 

[drankin]

the world didn't come to an end the last time Greenland was Green. bring it on.

Unless you have at least one PhD and are part of the climate science community recognized by the IPCC, you aren't qualified to make such a statement. Here, have some koolaid.

 

[LowlyPion]

The focus on Artic ice melt directly causing sea level rise comes from the AP science writer, not from Fox. This Fox piece quotes various scientists criticizing the AP writer specifically for saying the "...Arctic ice melt will be amplified so that ominous sea level rise will occur sooner than they expected..." which does indeed invite a 4th grade science lesson.

I'm sorry. Where again is Greenland most substantially located? Are you suggesting that Greenland is not mostly located in the Arctic? Or is the ice in Greenland to be ignored? Perhaps instead the FSU Professor should have had a 4th Grade Geography Lesson? Now maybe the AP Reporter would have confused Arctic ice with Arctic Ocean ice, but wouldn't you have higher expectations for a professor? And just where was Fox's fact checking in criticizing AP?

7 meters? That's only if the entire Greenland ice mass was to be totally liquefied, which the IPCC does not predict even worst case for any time period. The IPCC 2001 sea level worst case sea level rise is ~0.9m by 2100, nominal case 0.4m.

I'm not beginning to suggest that the entire sheet will melt by century end. But neither am I necessarily prepared to think the end of the century is the end of melting. And there is that potential overhang for sea level impact, and in the current decades it has shown acceleration. Acceleration is a nasty business the way it adds up and all. And not having a lot of evidence with which to interpret acceleration and deceleration I would want to know more before flagging the next generation through with a full speed ahead.

So sorry I'm not prescient enough to figure where stasis may be or whether or not there are tipping points. It's enough for me to want to approach the issue with caution and not obfuscate the issues for the purpose of supporting some right wing agenda that passes the planet to the next generation and damn the consequences of the actions of this one.

 

[NeoDevin]

If you mean the wattsupwiththat article, I am actually the one who posted it (no worries on the confusion, I do it myself sometimes).

I only posted the blog since I couldn't quickly find an actual news story, only articles on right wing blogs and places like InfoWars, but I knew I had heard something of the like in the news. That one was the only I found that did not seem to have a political agenda attached. I only meant to show that Drankin's anecdotal evidence has been echoed in media lately regardless of it's accuracy.
Thank you for the criticism of the article from your friend.

Yes, sorry, my bad. In that case I reiterate my previous question (which seems to have been deleted somehow? Mentors?) that was meant for you (but I confused that one too)

do you know if there is a peer reviewed article which backs up the claims made in the blog post you linked to?

Edit: Looking back the reason for the confusion was because I responded to you, and then he responded to me. Sorry again about that.

 

[Andre]

Evo, you've still ignored my points. Do you have any specific objections to the IPCC report (such as they were "picking and choosing" their data) with a source to back it up (that isn't taken out of context)?

Let mew tell you that they were rather selective. No mentioning for instance of http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

do you know if there is a peer reviewed article which backs up the claims made in the blog post you linked to?

Ummm... I looked over the article again incase I missed something. I don't see any particular assertions being made, only data presented. Apparently the data he is showing is supposed to support other articles he has written but I have not read them. Again I just posted it to support Drankin's anecdotal evidence (that it has been colder lately) since he seemed to not be aware of actual supporting evidence or for what ever reason decided not to post any. As mentioned by your friend there have apparently been those who have cited his article claiming that "150 years of warming has been erased in one year!" Watts mentions this, and the fact that it is obviously not supported by the evidence he shows, at the bottom of the article.
Unless you mean to question whether or not the metrics he is using are proper for his purpose? That I would have no idea about or how I would go about finding a peer reviewed paper on such a minor matter as a single year of cooling. They seem useful in a general way. I don't see why they would not support his claim that the global average temperture dropped over the year 2007. Whether this is particularly meaningful is an entirely other question of course.