Thread: Climate Change is real!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by dalem

But on what do you base that opinion? I've voted for both Dems and Repubs but my stance on "the environment" has never changed.

I just don't see tha value in attributing motive here except as humor.

-dale

Dale,

I will say that *you* have not introduced a "pollitical bent" into this discussion. If you will note, I said "many" do, not "all" do.

In terms of "religion", well, your response on that front was fairly automatic, Dale, even to me. I was a tad surprised at that, since I had remembered agreeing with you on a world of other issues, and disagreeing on some. In those cases, your dismissal of the opposing viewpoint may have been automatic, but it was not accompanied by the automatic label that you yourself popped out there from near the start on this thread (i.e. from the time I popped my head in.) You certainly cannot disavow that.

Gun, without a doubt sees the GW debate as a political one. And solely as a political one. And he pops out the absolute same automatic "drive by label".

If you want more evidence of this "polarization" and drive-by smarm (from both sides, mind you), just go hit any politically-issued website or blog.

I would be "shocked, tell you shocked" that Kos doesnt blindly label anyone who is a skeptic as a perjorative "denialist". I would also be as "shocked, tell you shocked" that Hannity or Rush does not as well. Heck, I *know* that since I have that drivel on in the radio.

I will say that the perjorative labels *as well* as the knee jerk application of those labels occur almost by rote now. From both sides.

It is just as ignorant to label someone who is a critic or skeptic as a "goose stepping oil company flunkie who can't think for themselves out of Rush Limbaugh's shadow" as it is to blindly call one who sees merit in the science as "Rev Gores commie socialist panty waste euro weenie homo loving tree hugger".

It is also just as ignorant to shrill in a kneejerk manner "denialist" (has kind of a racial, genocide loving undertone, wouldn't you say?) to someone who has a basis for saying that they don't buy into AGW, as it is for those in the opposite camp to (in just a knee jerkily) to crackle "religious" to those who objectively look at the body of work, support it, and try to debate it in amnner devoid of a political or philosophical framework.

And this happens (on both sides) all the time.

Originally Posted by Dwarven Pirate

Well, this is all very nice, but I believe that it is Man's destiny and purpose to shave Gaia's foresty whiskers, pop her oily pimples, and rid her of all the mammalian and fishy lice. Once that's done with, God will be happy with us and the earth will be serene in its dusty stone peace. Amen.

THE INTRODUCTION, INCREASE, AND CRASH OF REINDEER ON ST. MATTHEW ISLAND

Your name implies to me that you are either an old drugged up hippy stuck in a time warp. Or a short, squatty, seafaring bum with one eye and a peg leg, old drugged up hippy stuck in a time warp.

Or maybe an athiest, commie, E.L.F.member, old drugged up hippy stuck in a time warp.

QUIT SMOKING ROPE AND ENTER THE DARK SIDE OF THE ROUND EARTH SOCIETY YOU TROLL!!!




LOVINGLY, IVAN

Thank you for the links.

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

ATMOSPHERE: Global Change in the Upper Atmosphere -- Laštovička et al. 314 (5803): 1253 -- Science

This study cannot be viewed w/o a subscription, and the abstract is rather brief..

The upper atmosphere is cooling and contracting as a result of rising greenhouse gas concentrations. These changes are likely to affect the orbital lifetimes of satellites.

From this I cannot tell if this study is about statement 1, or if statement one is an assumption to support a study on statement 2.

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

Fu, Q., C.M. Johanson, S.G. Warren, and D.J. Seidel, 2004: Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite-inferred tropospheric temperature trends. Nature

Again, this cannot be viewed w/o a subscription, but has a better summary.

summary:

From 1979 to 2001, temperatures observed globally by the mid-tropospheric channel of the satellite-borne Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU channel 2), as well as the inferred temperatures in the lower troposphere, show only small warming trends of less than 0.1 K per decade (refs 1–3). Surface temperatures based on in situ observations however, exhibit a larger warming of 0.17 K per decade (refs 4, 5), and global climate models forced by combined anthropogenic and natural factors project an increase in tropospheric temperatures that is somewhat larger than the surface temperature increase6, 7, 8. Here we show that trends in MSU channel 2 temperatures are weak because the instrument partly records stratospheric temperatures whose large cooling trend9 offsets the contributions of tropospheric warming.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me they are saying the observed data does not match the model projections, therefore the observed data must be wrong...? I think it's interesting that surface temp, which they also refer to as lower than projections, was recently adjusted downward, but that may or not be relevant to this study. In any case, it would seem this study is not as much about "a) observations on heating at differing altitudes" then it is about obsverations not matching model projections.

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

http://www.copernicus.org/EGS/annales/16/ag16/1501.pdf
(note: this one details a model, but includes indirect measurements in the substantiation)

Well the trend they discuss is a cooling trend and not "heating", but I see where you're going. They state: "In particular, in the MLT region, all observations indicate strong cooling trends". More recent studies:

An Overview of Long-Term Trends in the Lower Ionosphere Below 120 km

CAT.INIST

One other thing, though not directly related to your post, that particulary bothered me with this study is the following conclusion:

The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has "only" increased by about 12% during the last 30 years (e.g., Kane and de Paula, 1996). It would therefore be inappropriate to directly compare simulations of atmospheric response to doubling of CO2 with long-term observations in the MLT. Although inconclusive, the available observations reveal some features that are strikingly similar to the simulations. These include the overall cooling trend in the MLT maximizing in the upper mesosphere, no apparent cooling around 100 km, a comparatively strong cooling higher in the thermosphere (e.g., compare Fig. 12 in this work with Fig. 3 in the paper by Semenov, 1996), and a substantial descent of ionospheric and emission layers in the thermosphere. These similarities suggest that during the last 3-4 decades real changes have occurred in the middle and upper atmosphere comparable in strength to the impact of doubling of CO2.

The last statement bother me for 2 reasons... (besides the fact that it surely seems contradictory):

1) It would seem he's trying to suggest validity of the model, but I don't see how a model using double co2 getting "similar" results as the observed state at far less co2 makes the model valid.

2) "These similarities suggest that during the last 3-4 decades real changes have occurred"...

How does comparing reality to a simulation somehow lend truth to reality? Either changes have occured or they haven't. Whether or not a simulation agrees or not doesn't change that. I see things like this time and again, and it seems to me there's way too much trust and reliance on models, even to the point where it's suggested reality must be wrong when the models disagree. (see above study)

GAGE, KS; REID, GC, 1982: COHERENT ANNUAL AND INTERANNUAL VARIATIONS IN TEMPERATURE AND HEIGHT FIELDS IN THE TROPICAL TROPOSPHERE AND LOWER STRATOSPHERE. Geophys. Res. Lett.: Vol. 9, 1199-1201

KIEHL, JT; SOLOMON, S, 1986: ON THE RADIATIVE BALANCE OF THE STRATOSPHERE. J. Atmos. Sci.: Vol. 43, 1525-1534

I'm assuming these 2, since I admit I have not looked at them yet, are about mechanisms and not about current observed data/trends, since they are from 1982 and 1986. When I get a chance I'll take a look.

Contributions of Anthropogenic and Natural Forcing to Recent Tropopause Height Changes
B. D. Santer, M. F. Wehner, T. M. L. Wigley, R. Sausen, G. A. Meehl, K. E. Taylor, C. Ammann, J. Arblaster, W. M. Washington, J. S. Boyle, and W. Brüggemann
Science 25 July 2003 301: 479-483

Subcription needed again, so summary:

Observations indicate that the height of the tropopause—the boundary between the stratosphere and troposphere—has increased by several hundred meters since 1979. Comparable increases are evident in climate model experiments. The latter show that human-induced changes in ozone and well-mixed greenhouse gases account for 80% of the simulated rise in tropopause height over 1979–1999. Their primary contributions are through cooling of the stratosphere (caused by ozone) and warming of the troposphere (caused by well-mixed greenhouse gases). A model-predicted fingerprint of tropopause height changes is statistically detectable in two different observational ("reanalysis") data sets. This positive detection result allows us to attribute overall tropopause height changes to a combination of anthropogenic and natural external forcings, with the anthropogenic component predominating.

I have to ask, is it at all possible that without climate models there would be no significant human influence on climate at all?

Anthropogenic and Natural Influences in the Evolution of Lower Stratospheric Cooling
V. Ramaswamy, M. D. Schwarzkopf, W. J. Randel, B. D. Santer, B. J. Soden, and G. L. Stenchikov
Science 24 February 2006 311: 1138-1141

summary: (once again, subscription required)

Observations reveal that the substantial cooling of the global lower stratosphere over 1979–2003 occurred in two pronounced steplike transitions. These arose in the aftermath of two major volcanic eruptions, with each cooling transition being followed by a period of relatively steady temperatures. Climate model simulations indicate that the space-time structure of the observed cooling is largely attributable to the combined effect of changes in both anthropogenic factors (ozone depletion and increases in well-mixed greenhouse gases) and natural factors (solar irradiance variation and volcanic aerosols). The anthropogenic factors drove the overall cooling during the period, and the natural ones modulated the evolution of the cooling.

I'm seeing a pattern here... "Climate model simulations indicate." Plus, they are again speaking of cooling, not heating.

Don't you think there's a bit too much reliance on climate models?

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Hmm, thought not.

How about this?


It is of course just the summary, the full study in pdf form can be sourced here

Its a much better scientific study than the previous one.

There are three things it attempts to do:

a) call attention to the concept that the LIA and the MWP existed;
b) weaken MBH98, MBH99, Mann2000 and Mann 2001a (iirc);
c) weaken the carbon forcing argument.

I think that Mann's weaknesses are fourfold: does not account to these events; has some potential problems by a reliance on bristlecone proxies that might introduce "red noise" (non-random bias); potential incorrect mathematical procedures; and failure to release backgorund programs and data used in the study(ies).

The paper does a good job of calling out a world of items that seem to point to a finding that the MWP and the LIA are more than jsut regional events. In this case, since Mann's studies do not necessarily show these events, this would weaken Mann's study. As more evidence unfolds for such events, then the Hockey Stick people need to account for this in a better way.

So for item a), it does a good job pointing out supporting evidence. As it does this, it does tend to weaken the Mann position.

However, you are aware of other studies that have come out that *bolster* the Mann position, have you not? I haven't had the time to look them over, but it will be interesting to see how they play out.

As for point c), I think that they fall a little short on their thesis. First, they apparently try to ride on a false duality argument. Mann says a certain temperature record exists, and the temperature record that he found can only be reconciled by AGW forcings. This study does a good job for attacking the premise: that the temperature record of Mann may not be correctly interepreted or portrayed. Unfortunately, if that were true, this only means that Mann cannot be used in support or furtherance of the AGW theory. It does not mean that AGW theory is wrong, only that Mann cannot be used to support it.

Their second tack is to try to weaken the AGW case by pointing out shortcomings in model based avenues. I would support their recommendation in furthr research of the models, they don't account for everything.

However, when assessing the models, one can look at what thay do do. Linked below is a short primer on the instrinsic capabilities of models, and many of their limitations.
The physics of climate modeling - Physics Today January 2007

Further, the article *only* attacks the AGW hypothesis by attacking the models; it does nothing in the realm of looking at obervations of other phenomena that would be associated with the presence of AGW.

Finally, the piece attacks AGW by poinitng at a "single" proxy and concluding from that single proxy that "the early part of the 20th century warming must be largely dissociated from anthropogenic CO2 emissions." They actually fail to include any mention of any proxy that cuts against the Overstack study (which are numerous.) This kind of has a feeling of "cherry-picking" here to me.

Thanks for the reference Par.

=========================

Knowing Gun's "gunshyness" about mentioning studies done by persons who accept fudns from oil companies, perhaps one of you would like to look up the authors of this piece. Has anybody else noticed that the three pieces that have been provided to bolster the skeptic's position all come from people having accepted funds from oil and oil-related groups?

Par, your first one was from Lindzen
JAD, yours was from Singer
This one has: a) in the footnote stating "(t)his work was supported by funds from ... the American Petroleum Institute"; and b) has authors associated with the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. I didn't know who the Center was and looked them up....

Look, this paper is fine. I don't have a problem with it. But it just seems odd to me that each of the cites that have been posted here from the skeptic's perspective all ahve some tie to oil money or groups that support oil.....

Originally Posted by Wooglin

Thank you for the links.

Wooglin, you are right that most of the studies are reporting model runs. What they are doing is using real observations to compare with the models.

In short, they are looking for identifiable and measurable criteria to support what the physics says about what should happen to the stratosphere and the troposhpere if the stuff that they "add to the soup" is in fact there.

Look at the link that JAD provided me on Singer's speech. At that web page, Singer provides a link to the atmospheric study that he uses as a basis. That study will also give you information.

In short, the theory of AGW (yes a theory) provides that if there is AGW, it will heat certain zones of the atmosphere faster or slower, and might even cool other portions of the atmosphere. If they detect a temperature differential that is predicted, then that would be a piece of evidence that would tend to show that the overall theory would be correct.

If those temperature signatures are not there, that would be a piece of evidence that the thesis (AGW as they expect it or expect it to work or expect to have certain characteristics) is not correct.

I provided a link above to a quick overview of the strengths and weaknesses of models. Imo, the article has a tendency to emphasize the pros over the cons, but that is just my quick reading of that link.

not sure if it was posted before but,
DAILYTECH

SURVEY: LESS THAN HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY; COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING VIEWPOINTS

Michael Asher
August 29, 2007 11:07 AM
In 2004, history professor Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change. Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the "consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on global climate change. Oreskes' work has been repeatedly cited, but as some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."

The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here. Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming. In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Schulte's survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for Policymakers" -- the only portion usually quoted in the media -- is written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved, word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC policy, the individual report chapters -- the only text actually written by scientists -- are edited to "ensure compliance" with the summary, which is typically published months before the actual report itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

TANG,



Al's investment in carbon credits industry...Could that be construed as conflict of interest?

Everybody seems to have a horse in the race. But as some peoples horses will be 'GORED' and livelyhoods dashed by the knee jerk of scientist and politicians assessment of why the globe is warming.

As I have said time and again, The science community was wrong in the seventies about the doom of an iceage. And from all the evidense I have read, of which I took the time to interpret, from both sides of the isle, I am not about to have my horse in the race 'GORED' by the lack of commonsense and reason. When Temperature in the late seventies started to rise the enviro-left changed their paradign from cold to hot.

THAT, MY SCIENTIFIC FRIEND IS A KNEE JERK REACTION IN RESPONSE TO A SIMPLE FLUCTUATION IN TEMPERATURE OVER THE PERIOD OF A DECADE.

By the way I am both a Christian (religious) and a conservative. Those facts don't play into my choice for believing that CO2 does not cause the global warming. Reading the "facts and oppinions" of both sides do. Science changes and evolves. Much of what was science 100 years ago is old news, though some is relevent. The same with todays science some will last the test of time and some will wither on the vine. I.E. the seventies Iceage.

Step back a bit and look at all of the scientist views. Some are trully inspired, and some are just hired.

There is endless Minutia on the subject. So I like to stick to the sensible and understandable points made and put them into my own words in my post. So don't get the idea that I am not reading and listening to both sides of the issue.


Ivan