Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

**Monash** · 12 Oct 11,, 08:15

Interesting article on the experimental modelling of ice formation under controlled laboratory conditions in ice tanks (and the implications for current climate models) being conducted by a first rate scientific research body.

P.S. Sorry for the upload for some reason I couldnt link to the article/site (the Max Planc Institute for Meteorology).

Attachment 26789

**Red Team** · 12 Oct 11,, 19:22

Originally Posted by The Black Ghost

Good poll.

Shows American ignorance and politics at work.

Strictly speaking, this poll does not possess the large sample size needed to provide an accurate consensus of my country's opinions on global warming. You will find in more appropriate polls that the country as a whole is split (http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/...ng-poll-shows/) in their opinions. Frankly this statement shows your ignorance and dislike of Americans.

I personally believe we as humans, not as a country, have one way or another influenced global warming and have a vast history of experiments and studies from the past 4 decades. But unfortunately, human nature has time and again required solid proof (ie. Catastrophic event) to finally draw the conclusion for themselves. So as long as nothing like it has happened, we will continue to do the same thing, and follow the same path, because of a lack of direct consequence.

**gunnut** · 13 Oct 11,, 20:41

I fight global warming with local cooling...

**highsea** · 13 Oct 11,, 21:08

You're an environmentalist. You think global and act local.

**gunnut** · 13 Oct 11,, 21:47

Absolutely! Right next to the Prophet Al.

**astralis** · 21 Oct 11,, 18:17

i'm surprised no one has talked about the most recent report out, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature/BEST report.

as Anthony Watts said,

But here’s the thing: I have no certainty nor expectations in the results. Like them, I have no idea whether it will show more warming, about the same, no change, or cooling in the land surface temperature record they are analyzing. Neither do they, as they have not run the full data set, only small test runs on certain areas to evaluate the code. However, I can say that having examined the method, on the surface it seems to be a novel approach that handles many of the issues that have been raised.

As a reflection of my increased confidence, I have provided them with my surfacestations.org dataset to allow them to use it to run a comparisons against their data. The only caveat being that they won’t release my data publicly until our upcoming paper and the supplemental info (SI) has been published. Unlike NCDC and Menne et al, they respect my right to first publication of my own data and have agreed.

And, I’m prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong.

now,

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2011)

ruh roh...

**gunnut** · 21 Oct 11,, 18:27

Originally Posted by astralis

i'm surprised no one has talked about the most recent report out, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature/BEST report.

as Anthony Watts said,

now,

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (© 2011)

ruh roh...

Notice the records stopped at roughly 2007/2008. Also notice the trend was going down when the records stopped.

No one disputes that earth temperature is changing. But we dispute that we are the main driving force behind it.

The earth gets warm and the earth gets cold. It does what it wants and there ain't nothing we can do to stop it.

**astralis** · 21 Oct 11,, 18:54

gunnut,

No one disputes that earth temperature is changing. But we dispute that we are the main driving force behind it.

actually, as far as i can tell, the "skeptic" camp is divided into three parts-- one that believes the temperature is not changing, period; one that believes the temperature IS changing, but for as yet unknown reasons (one of which COULD be anthropogenic); one that believes the temperature IS changing, but definitely not because of human activity. as one might guess from my usual political stances, i'm in the middle category.

note the study itself does NOT cover whether or not temperature change is caused by humans. the conclusion is that even with the new station data and methodology, the temperature has gone up largely in line with previous measurements.

as i seem to gather from watts, though, his stance seems to be the first (that it's not changing, period). he's doing a lot of spluttering, now, stating that the study hasn't undergone peer review (which it is now). which doesn't make much sense, because he's also banging the whole "who cares about consensus" drum too.

**Wooglin** · 22 Oct 11,, 07:38

Originally Posted by astralis

gunnut,

actually, as far as i can tell, the "skeptic" camp is divided into three parts-- one that believes the temperature is not changing, period; one that believes the temperature IS changing, but for as yet unknown reasons (one of which COULD be anthropogenic); one that believes the temperature IS changing, but definitely not because of human activity. as one might guess from my usual political stances, i'm in the middle category.

note the study itself does NOT cover whether or not temperature change is caused by humans. the conclusion is that even with the new station data and methodology, the temperature has gone up largely in line with previous measurements.

as i seem to gather from watts, though, his stance seems to be the first (that it's not changing, period). he's doing a lot of spluttering, now, stating that the study hasn't undergone peer review (which it is now). which doesn't make much sense, because he's also banging the whole "who cares about consensus" drum too.

Watts objection is the fact that the Berkeley set is doing a media blitz before it's even been peer-reviewed, which is certainly a valid objection. And Watts is not is the first camp by any means. Here's a recent quote: "And, The Economist still doesn’t get it. The issue of “the world is warming” is not one that climate skeptics question, it is the magnitude and causes." He has never argued that temperature has not changed.

What I want to know about the Berkeley set is how it's different from the other three. The other three sets are not independent. They are all derived from NCDC, so the fact that they tend to agree is not that impressive. But it doesn't matter that much to me, since the argument isn't about whether or not it got warmer the last 30 years.

**Red Team** · 22 Oct 11,, 14:50

Originally Posted by gunnut

Notice the records stopped at roughly 2007/2008. Also notice the trend was going down when the records stopped.

No one disputes that earth temperature is changing. But we dispute that we are the main driving force behind it.

The earth gets warm and the earth gets cold. It does what it wants and there ain't nothing we can do to stop it.

Ah the science involved with global warming goes much more in-depth into explanation of how our normal occurring dynamic weather patterns are getting more extreme (notice how # of powerful hurricanes/tsunamis and blizzards have risen?). If you want I can dig into my old class notes to divulge what I know in a coherent manner?

That is the science according to the theory of "man initiated" global warming. It's quite interesting stuff skeptic or not.

**highsea** · 22 Oct 11,, 20:18

Originally Posted by Red Team

Ah the science involved with global warming goes much more in-depth into explanation of how our normal occurring dynamic weather patterns are getting more extreme (notice how # of powerful hurricanes/tsunamis and blizzards have risen?).

The most detailed analysis so far has been the 20th Century Reanalysis Project, and they could not find any statistical extremes comparing the current patterns against historical patterns back to 1871.

Considering longer-term variations in Figure 16, it is readily apparent that none of the indices have demonstrable trends over the 1871 to 2008 period of 20CRv2, and a more rigorous statistical trends significance analysis supports this (not shown). Additional studies incorporating the uncertainty estimates in the 20CRv2 are under way to quantify further any significant decadal variability in Figure 16.

The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project - Compo - 2011 - Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society - Wiley Online Library

**Red Team** · 22 Oct 11,, 21:47

Originally Posted by highsea

The most detailed analysis so far has been the 20th Century Reanalysis Project, and they could not find any statistical extremes comparing the current patterns against historical patterns back to 1871.

Does this measure the quantity of catagorized major storms globally or the severity of such storms? Quantity-measuring graphs do tend to overlook severity...and hurricanes have been shown to have gradually grown in strength over the decades in a pattern correlating with increased energy production. Correlation may not necessarily imply causation, but considering the pattern of increasingly severe storms over the decade, also taking into account increases in extremes like droughts and floods...something is definitely messing with the weather patterns.

**highsea** · 22 Oct 11,, 22:00

Originally Posted by Red Team

Does this measure the quantity of catagorized major storms globally or the severity of such storms?

Did you bother to read the abstract and introduction, or are you asking me to explain it to you?

**Red Team** · 23 Oct 11,, 01:10

Originally Posted by highsea

Did you bother to read the abstract and introduction, or are you asking me to explain it to you?

I took a quick look but I didn't have time to read the entire thing at the time calm ya self...

**Red Team** · 23 Oct 11,, 02:29

Originally Posted by highsea

Did you bother to read the abstract and introduction, or are you asking me to explain it to you?

After reading:

Interesting stuff, overall well done study by accredited meteorologists. Initially I felt that the equations and the involved supercomputer was unnecessary (I'm a firm believer of Occam's Razor), and I was starting to think that the equations were somehow flawed in their usage because of the contradicting results from many other studies I've seen...which in fact show trends in temperature rises and severity of extreme weather. So I did a little digging and found this letter to the editor by the researchers to the Wall Street Journal who posted an article on their findings:

Here's the article:The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder - WSJ.com

Here's the letter: Severe Weather Is Driven by Many Factors - WSJ.com

This letter clarified on the fact on that this was not a study on weather itself but a study on three specific weather patterns which drive weather, necessitating the use of those equations of which I initially thought unnecessary. This study is also one looking back towards previous weather patterns while other current models supporting global warming are more recent, are 'predictor models' based on available data from a shorter timeline and correlate their findings (in data of average surface temperatures from different parts of the world) mainly during times of major increases in fossil fuel energy production related to our exponential population growth. IMO this study compared to other studies (borrowing a line from Herman Cain

) are like apples to oranges and a misleading way for nay-sayers to prove their points.

Yes, there still exists the possibility that global warming is an anomaly of our naturally dynamic weather coincidentally correlating with our increased usage of greenhouse gas emitting fossil fuels, but that reasoning works both ways: global warming could affect things in weather other than these three patterns.