quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

fr

I have a problem with any data set claimed by scientists as accurate -

New study shows half of the global warming in the USA is artificial

A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments. (bolding added)

Sorry all you AGCC adherents. The data does not yet substantiate your claims.

From the OP -

These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism

Skepticism indeed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Short of direct causality, it is hard to think of a more compelling set of circumstances than these. The study was designed and set up by 'skeptics' It was funded by reactionaries hoping to prove the scientific consensus on climate change was incorrect.

With respect to causality . . . at the start of his NY Times opinion piece Muller agrees that correlation does not prove causality. At the end of the piece he states this: "What about the future? As carbon dioxide emissions increase, the temperature should continue to rise," strongly implying causality. An intrinsic flaw in his reasoning, I think. Which is it? Correlation or cause/effect? Or just daydream predicting? Which is the cause and which is the effect? If you find data in his research that answers that question please point me to it.

btw, have a look at the study itself. It was funded by independent sources, not 'reactionaries.'

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Well, when you can set up a control earth where fossil fuels aren't being burned in the same space as we occupy for the purposes of comparison, then you might have a leg to stand on with that sort of nitpicking.

And BTW: "independent sources" = "reactionary" just like "liberal" = "Marxist".

quote:

Whatever quibbles you may have had with the scientific consensus in the past are redundant. You need a superior explanation if you wish to continue to play the game from now on. I don't see a superior explanation in your post. I don't even see an argument for an alternative value to be placed on this study.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Whatever quibbles you may have had with the scientific consensus in the past are redundant. You need a superior explanation if you wish to continue to play the game from now on. I don't see a superior explanation in your post. I don't even see an argument for an alternative value to be placed on this study.

I will try to sort this as best I can. There is little question looking back at the Vostek Ice Core record that at the beginning of each interglacial (warming) temperature rise has preceded the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. The record is supported by the logic that as the oceans warm and more vegetation grows, more CO2 is released. So, what caused glaciations and warming cycles before human history?

quote:

One theory is that natural climate changes are caused by Milankovitch cycles, changes in the Earth’s rotation. Admittedly, these are three long range cycles but bear with me please. They are: Eccentricity (changes in the elliptical path) which occurs every 100,000 years; changes in the Axial Tilt between 22.1 and 24.5 degrees, currently at 23.44 degrees, which occurs every 41,000 years; and Precession (a wobble) which is a change in the angle of the orbit’s plane every 26,000 years. None of these takes place smoothly presumably but in fits and starts and with backtracking. Nature simply does not work smoothly. Oft times She is catastrophic in Her behavior, as we know from our short acquaintance with Her.

quote:

Since the beginning of the Holocene interglacial there have been several minor warmings and coolings we might consider outside the normal range of climate change. Perhaps the time of the Roman ascendency was one. Clearly the Medieval Warming from around 900 ce to 1300 ce and the Little Ice Age from 1300 ce to 1850 ce. All approximate dates. These historical climate changes in the absence of industrialization suggest to me the possibility that very minor variations or hiccups occurred in one of the Milankovitch cycles. It is offered as an hypothesis.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

How definite is the attribution to humans? The carbon dioxide curve gives a better match than anything else we’ve tried. Its magnitude is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect — extra warming from trapped heat radiation. These facts don’t prove causality and they shouldn’t end skepticism, but they raise the bar: to be considered seriously, an alternative explanation must match the data at least as well as carbon dioxide does.

This is really the bottom line, when the partisan/corporate shit stops.

Is there global warming? Yes.

Is it caused by industrialization? Maybe.

But also consider -- are the stakes high? They are.

quote:

The Vostok core goes back only 400k years. That's not far enough to cover more than 3 interglacials. To draw conclusions about global climate always working in one way based on a data set of 3 is beyond pointless.

quote:

Sudden change in axial tilt would invalidate the use of sextants for determining latitude and longitude. So we know that the tilt has been essentially stable since at least 1730. Which blows a hole in it being a cause in the "liitle ice age"

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

The Vostok core goes back only 400k years. That's not far enough to cover more than 3 interglacials. To draw conclusions about global climate always working in one way based on a data set of 3 is beyond pointless.

Much the same argument can be made for taking a set of data over a short period of time, observe a deviation, and extrapolate an increasing deviation out into the future. We had yearly frost warnings for our crops in south Florida well through the 1970s. And the late 1800s were a time of extremely bitter winters in the NH while there was a noticible warming in the 1920s and 1930s. Again bitter cold in the 1940s and 1950s. My point is that climate has fluctuated considerably over the last century.

quote:

quote:

Sudden change in axial tilt would invalidate the use of sextants for determining latitude and longitude. So we know that the tilt has been essentially stable since at least 1730. Which blows a hole in it being a cause in the "liitle ice age"

The LIA began with three years of crop crippling rains 400 years before the invention of the sextant.

quote:

The Medieval Warming began in the absence of industrialization. So, obviously some natural phenomena were at work. Perhaps the Malinkavich cycles are not a proper hypothesis for the shorter term events. Or perhaps some change in axial tilt did occur. The Earth is caught up amongst the gravitaional fields of the Sun and Jupiter. Any disturbance in those fields would have an effect.

quote:

In any case, my concern is that strict imposition of the Kyoto Protocols would have a disastrous effect on human industry while the world's population is growing to a predicted nine billion. I fear the impoverished would suffer even more than they do now and there would inevitably be an increase of bloody conflicts.

quote:

But it ended after the invention of the sextant which was based on observations of the sun and moon over the previous centuries. So we know the tilt has not changed that much.

quote:

And finally the crux of the matter you reject the facts because you do not believe mankind can innovate our way out of this mess. That isn't a reason to reject reality but a reason to re-evaluate your confidence in mankind as a whole.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

But it ended after the invention of the sextant which was based on observations of the sun and moon over the previous centuries. So we know the tilt has not changed that much.

You provided an excellent rebuttal to any short term influence of Milenkavich-type cycles, Ken. I knew it was a weak hypothesis when I threw it up here. However, it still stands for the long term ice age cycles apparently. Here is a link to a dissertation friendly to the concept of anthropogenic warming but where the author also affirms the 800 year lag of increase in atmospheric co2 following interglacial temperature rise.

Additionally, I am still left with the anomaly of the Medieval Warming. Your dismissal of the interglacial disparities and the MW as providing too little data points doesn't persuade me. It took only one important discovery to shift the cosmological constant from the left side of the General Relativity Field Equation to the right side, albeit a big one ~ the discovery of the expanding Universe rather than the static one that Einstein knew at the time. It is important for scientists and people who read science to bring a certain amount of skepticism. Here for example is the very same Richard Muller scorning the 'hide the decline' in the climategate scandal.

quote:

Furthermore, from the extensive data presented by Muller the temperature has risen only 1.5 degrees C over the past 250 years (.9 degrees since 1950) From other sources I learn that the co2 content has increased by roughly 35% over the past 100 years. The forcing effect of co2 does not seem to be very strong when looked at from those two numbers. So, I don't see that it explains the big bump up in the past 60 years, more particularly since 1980 in my region.

quote:

quote:

And finally the crux of the matter you reject the facts because you do not believe mankind can innovate our way out of this mess. That isn't a reason to reject reality but a reason to re-evaluate your confidence in mankind as a whole.

Primarily, it is a matter of science philosophy. I think science requires a healthy skepticism especially in the face of a rather sudden cascade of opinion. There should always be room for nay-sayers. That is what science is all about. That's how scientific knowledge progresses. I become suspicious when the process is captured by world politicians and when 'reality' is imposed by hierarchy which surpresses opposition to the received wisdom. No model should be beyond reproach until its predictions are tested. Unfortunately, in the current instance that is a difficulty. In the meanwhile it is amusing to witness the fervor and name calling that arises from both sides of the debate amongst the non-scientific laity.

quote:

I don't buy the argument that the current warming is catastrophic. Humankind will adapt to Nature or perish. We are only accidental travelers on this rock. We have no claim to perpetual residence in the long run. In the short run the fix is worse than the problem imho. Human population is climbing rapidly toward nine billion. To cut manufacturing back to 1990 levels by 2015 (Kyoto Protocol) would bring on a disastrous world economic depression. Especially in agriculture. The emerging nations will never agree to that action. Beware unintended consequences. The rich would thrive and the poor would suffer greater hardships.

quote:

No one is claiming CO2 is a very strong GHG. It is a much weaker GHG than H2O vapor or methane. However that doesn't change the fact that it does function as a GHG and that human activity has increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by more than 50% since 1750.

quote:

As Muller points out in the essay linked in my first post the data is so overwhelming that "skepticism" in this matter is no longer viable. Until some evidence comes along that challenges the existing data then we must operate on the assumption that the current data is correct and the conclusions drawn from that data are correct as well.

quote:

Furthermore you misintepret the Kyoto Protocol, or have believed liars. No one says we have to cut manufacturing back to any level. We simply must reduce CO2 emissions. We have already found many ways to do so. Your assumption that fossil fuels are the only way to fuel our economy is simply wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

No one is claiming CO2 is a very strong GHG. It is a much weaker GHG than H2O vapor or methane. However that doesn't change the fact that it does function as a GHG and that human activity has increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by more than 50% since 1750.

Umm . . . 280 ppm to 380 ppm works out to 35%.

quote:

quote:

As Muller points out in the essay linked in my first post the data is so overwhelming that "skepticism" in this matter is no longer viable. Until some evidence comes along that challenges the existing data then we must operate on the assumption that the current data is correct and the conclusions drawn from that data are correct as well.

The temperature change has not been commensurate with the increase in CO2. Do you understand why Muller used linear data for temperature change but natural log data for CO2 acceleration? I don't quite understand that.

quote:

quote:

Furthermore you misintepret the Kyoto Protocol, or have believed liars. No one says we have to cut manufacturing back to any level. We simply must reduce CO2 emissions. We have already found many ways to do so. Your assumption that fossil fuels are the only way to fuel our economy is simply wrong.

Nations and Corporations will give lip service to 'clean' energy but will use the most cost effective means for their industries. Until cheap high capacity storage batteries and efficient electric grids are developed carbon will remain the fuel of choice. Talk to me when you can fly a commercial airliner across the Pacific on solar power. However, in the meantime please don't tell me that we should all start reducing our carbon footprint. That aint gonna happen.

quote:

We do not expect the rise to be linear. In which paper does he use a natural log to linear relationship. I don't have time to go over all 4 looking.

quote:

The problem is that the so called medieval warming was not worldwide. It seems isolated to Europe. So until we find stronger evidence showing it as a worldwide phenomena it is wrong to even discuss it in regards to global climate.

quote:

In 2001 we produced 7.7% of our power from renewable sources. Last year it was up to 12.7% of total production. With more gains in effiency and more wind farms and solar installations being built there is no reason we cannot hit 25% of our production from renewables by 2025.

quote:

I've got to ask, why are you even involved in this discussion if you have so little knowledge of the situation?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

We do not expect the rise to be linear. In which paper does he use a natural log to linear relationship. I don't have time to go over all 4 looking.

Beneath the last graph in the Summary of Results you will find this paragraph:

"The annual and decadal land surface temperature from the BerkeleyEarth average, compared to a linear combination of volcanic sulfate emissions and the natural logarithm of CO2. It is observed that the large negative excursions in the early temperature records are likely to be explained by exceptional volcanic activity at this time. Similarly, the upward trend is likely to be an indication of anthropogenic changes. The grey area is the 95% confidence interval."

quote:

This from your earlier message:

quote:

The problem is that the so called medieval warming was not worldwide. It seems isolated to Europe. So until we find stronger evidence showing it as a worldwide phenomena it is wrong to even discuss it in regards to global climate.

Although the early IPCC reports minimize the MWP there seems to be evidence, sketchy of course due to the lack of instrumentation at the time, of concurrent phenomena in the Eurasian Arctic, Alaska, Chile, Africa, and Australia. Source in this Wiki article.

quote:

quote:

In 2001 we produced 7.7% of our power from renewable sources. Last year it was up to 12.7% of total production. With more gains in effiency and more wind farms and solar installations being built there is no reason we cannot hit 25% of our production from renewables by 2025.

I wonder what portion goes to heat and light private homes and what portion goes to industry. And of course a portion is nuclear, which is also problematic.

quote:

Contrary to my skepticism about the efficacy of CO2 as a GHG I would be happy to see reduction of carbon based fuels because they are terrible air, water, and soil polluters. I believe the drilling and fracking for natural gas in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and upstate New York is a terrible mistake. The same for shale oil harvesting in North Dakota and Alberta.

quote:

I've got to ask, why are you even involved in this discussion if you have so little knowledge of the situation?

Excuse me. I didn't know one had to have a particular level of expertise in order to participate on these boards. If you cannot handle the questioning and probing and wish only mindless agreement with your position, well then fine, I will withdraw from the discussion. No problem. Be happy

quote:

You made statements with certainty, such as about no one using renewable energy sources, that are simply incorrect. It is rather difficult to discuss anything with someone who firmly believes they know things that aren't true.

quote:

No one is claiming CO2 is a very strong GHG. It is a much weaker GHG than H2O vapor or methane. However that doesn't change the fact that it does function as a GHG and that human activity has increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by more than 50% since 1750.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

No one is claiming CO2 is a very strong GHG. It is a much weaker GHG than H2O vapor or methane. However that doesn't change the fact that it does function as a GHG and that human activity has increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by more than 50% since 1750.

Really? No one is claiming CO2 is a very strong GHG? Then why the big scare? Freakin amazing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

You made statements with certainty, such as about no one using renewable energy sources, that are simply incorrect. It is rather difficult to discuss anything with someone who firmly believes they know things that aren't true.

Always happy to change my mind with new information. That's why I participate on these Boards.

quote:

No one is claiming CO2 is a very strong GHG. It is a much weaker GHG than H2O vapor or methane. However that doesn't change the fact that it does function as a GHG and that human activity has increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by more than 50% since 1750.

Really? No one is claiming CO2 is a very strong GHG? Then why the big scare? Freakin amazing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

You made statements with certainty, such as about no one using renewable energy sources, that are simply incorrect. It is rather difficult to discuss anything with someone who firmly believes they know things that aren't true.

Always happy to change my mind with new information. That's why I participate on these Boards.

quote:

No one is claiming CO2 is a very strong GHG. It is a much weaker GHG than H2O vapor or methane. However that doesn't change the fact that it does function as a GHG and that human activity has increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by more than 50% since 1750.

Really? No one is claiming CO2 is a very strong GHG? Then why the big scare? Freakin amazing.

Because we've put hundreds of billions of tons of the stuff into the air since 1750. Even a weak GHG like CO2 will cause significant climate change under these conditions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

You made statements with certainty, such as about no one using renewable energy sources, that are simply incorrect. It is rather difficult to discuss anything with someone who firmly believes they know things that aren't true.

Always happy to change my mind with new information. That's why I participate on these Boards.

quote:

No one is claiming CO2 is a very strong GHG. It is a much weaker GHG than H2O vapor or methane. However that doesn't change the fact that it does function as a GHG and that human activity has increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by more than 50% since 1750.

Really? No one is claiming CO2 is a very strong GHG? Then why the big scare? Freakin amazing.

Because we've put hundreds of billions of tons of the stuff into the air since 1750. Even a weak GHG like CO2 will cause significant climate change under these conditions.

FFS! 1.5 degrees C in 250 years. And Muller used a log scale to plot a steep curve for CO2 increase.

Look. We have enjoyed balmier winters here in south Florida. Since around 1980. I am grateful for the warming in our area. We have longer agricultural and tourist seasons. We are not suffering the current drought. Neither is Europe as far as I know. The drought lasted a number of years in the 1930s and it might again. We survived it before. If we have to adapt to new climate conditions we will. The predictions of future catastrophe may or may not come about. Nature bashes us plenty enough now. Maybe we will all have to move to Hudson Bay. Hey? Humankind will adapt. During the MWP the Vikings sailed to Greenland and Labrador and wine was grown in Great Britain. Some good possibilities lie ahead. Sorry I can't share your worry. The END is not here or near. Just sayin, yanno . . . .

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

You made statements with certainty, such as about no one using renewable energy sources, that are simply incorrect. It is rather difficult to discuss anything with someone who firmly believes they know things that aren't true.

Always happy to change my mind with new information. That's why I participate on these Boards.

quote:

No one is claiming CO2 is a very strong GHG. It is a much weaker GHG than H2O vapor or methane. However that doesn't change the fact that it does function as a GHG and that human activity has increased the atmospheric concentration of CO2 by more than 50% since 1750.

Really? No one is claiming CO2 is a very strong GHG? Then why the big scare? Freakin amazing.

Because we've put hundreds of billions of tons of the stuff into the air since 1750. Even a weak GHG like CO2 will cause significant climate change under these conditions.

FFS! 1.5 degrees C in 250 years. And Muller used a log scale to plot a steep curve for CO2 increase.

Look. We have enjoyed balmier winters here in south Florida. Since around 1980. I am grateful for the warming in our area. We have longer agricultural and tourist seasons. We are not suffering the current drought. Neither is Europe as far as I know. The drought lasted a number of years in the 1930s and it might again. We survived it before. If we have to adapt to new climate conditions we will. The predictions of future catastrophe may or may not come about. Nature bashes us plenty enough now. Maybe we will all have to move to Hudson Bay. Hey? Humankind will adapt. During the MWP the Vikings sailed to Greenland and Labrador and wine was grown in Great Britain. Some good possibilities lie ahead. Sorry I can't share your worry. The END is not here or near. Just sayin, yanno . . . .

So you're back to denying AGW completely?

BTW how far do you live above the present high tide line? Will you commit to staying put no matter what happens?