Climate Change!

[RickG]

More climate-gate « Holly On The Hill

AGW is bad science why did the temperature monitoring stations that were measuring temperatures in cooler areas become discontinued. Why did they take them offline and now only the temperature monitoring stations that measure temperature in warmer areas are online measuring temperature.

Since they took them offline the temperature globally has shown corresponding rise in temperature for no other reason. Why did they take them offline can anyone answer me that ?

Might I suggest we look at the science instead of political hype. NOAA dropped some stations for two specific reasons; (1) they were no longer active and (2) they no longer provided real-time data. The blogosphere is full of misinformation. I urge you to look at the actual science instead of relying on what people who don't work in the area say. Here is what NOAA actually did as explained by (NOAA).

The above graph shows two plots of before the cut-off and after the cut-off. They are virtually still identical as they still give the same trend. Also notice on the graph that some of the drop-offs yield lower temperatures, not higher ones.

And another thing, you like to post comments about Dr. Roy Spencer. You do know that he also constructs one the 5 major global temperature records (UAH) as well, I gather. His record is from satellite data which measures the lower atmosphere, not surface temperatures. Nevertheless, his data reflects the same trend you keep saying isn't happening.

 

[Greatcloud]

Well for one thing Rick those graphs show an upward trend up to the year 2000 well it is 2012 now not 2000 and that upward trend is gone now and we are looking at 15 years of static temperatures. Yes 15 years now; what would make you believe the theory of AGW is wrong. I suppose the temp would have to go down before you believe that the theory is wrong, well just hold on and it will go down, then you will have to admit the theory is wrong.




CO2

 

[Cromulent]

Well for one thing Rick those graphs show an upward trend up to the year 2000 well it is 2012 now not 2000 and that upward trend is gone now and we are looking at 15 years of static temperatures. Yes 15 years now; what would make you believe the theory of AGW is wrong. I suppose the temp would have to go down before you believe that the theory is wrong, well just hold on and it will go down, then you will have to admit the theory is wrong.




CO2

1. Both those graphs show a warming trend past 2000 (just because the scale on the X axis stops, doesn't mean the lines do)

2. Even 12 years of static temperatures wouldn't buck a 100+ year trend of warming.

Keep trying.

 

[RickG]

Well for one thing Rick those graphs show an upward trend up to the year 2000 well it is 2012 now not 2000 and that upward trend is gone now and we are looking at 15 years of static temperatures. Yes 15 years now; what would make you believe the theory of AGW is wrong. I suppose the temp would have to go down before you believe that the theory is wrong, well just hold on and it will go down, then you will have to admit the theory is wrong.

If AGW theory is wrong it can easily be shown. All one has to do is show some natural forcing that is stronger than the current forcing of increased greenhouse gases. Please present one if you have it.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Your explanation does not tell why as a coincedence all the weather stations that were discontinued were cold areas and no warm area temperature stations were shut down. Yes I read what you wrote but that is a lot of dancing around the point.

Can you show me evidence that stations were actually DISCONTINUED or were they just not "real-time" stations so their data comes in after the fact?

I'm not sure if you are understanding what Peterson and Vose are saying.

Remember that in, let's say 2000, the reported data going back many years would obviously include stations that would have had time to report their data if they were not connected via real-time reporting. That means they have to be hand-entered in some cases.

OBVIOUSLY that means that in 2000, if it takes a couple years to get some data from some places, there will be less data points in the MORE RECENT DATA but ultimately many of these stations WILL BE IN THE SYSTEM.

I recognize that this might be a bit complex for a skeptoid to wrap his or her head around, but let me give you an example:

If I have 100 stations reporting data but only 25 of those report automatically into the database via network connection and the other 75 require someone to go out and collected the data in a notebook and then, when they get around to it they report the data into the system.

Now here's how this works out. If it takes 6 months for a "MANUAL" data set to get into the database but it takes 3 seconds for an "AUTOMATIC" data station to report to the database if I take data from say 1970 to 2000 obviously right up to 6 months ago I will likely have all 100 stations data in the database, but then suddenly at 6 months it will look like about 75% of the datastations simply "disappear".

Why? Because I don't yet have the "MANUAL" data in the dataset.

Does that mean that those stations have been taken off line?

NO.

Now I'm not going to say that some stations haven't been discontinued, but 75% of them? Ummmm, well Peterson and Vose already addressed that "canard" years ago.

AND even then if you want to show bias, why wouldn't a SIMPLE TEST of the recent data (which you think is biased toward warmer stations by the "loss" of cooler stations) vs the "cooler" stations?

Well, as I showed earlier, there is no significant warm bias in the data between the two data sets.

Oh yeah, and THIS ISN'T HOW TEMPERATURE TRENDS ARE MEASURED.

They are done using a TEMPERATURE ANOMALY. The difference between what the usual temperature would be based on a specific average time frame versus what the temperature is for that individual measurement.

SO MATHEMATICALLY SPEAKING HOW COULD SIMPLY REMOVING STATIONS SHOW A WARMING BIAS?

It's not like we are measure the "absolute temperature of the earth". That's a nearly useless measurement and of course NOT HOW CLIMATOLOGISTS DO THIS STUFF.

This is pretty straightforward math. They are looking at the TRENDS and NOT the absolute value

The point is it is a conspiracy to muddle the record.

No, no it's not. It's only a "conspiracy" to those who don't seem to want to read what is actually going on and is openly published and freely available.

If those stations were there we would have seen greater drops greater dips in the record. Which is what satellite shows.

Where?

 

[farmer joe]

No one has blamed climate change for Earth quakes. I don't think many sciensts have blamed those events on climate change either, many will tell you that it is almost impossible to predict what events are due to climate change.

Well unless you can provide evidence that we can control the weather, which those links you posted didn't have using HAARP, I have no reason to believe you.

Lets face it, any information we get from here or elsewhere can be disinformation. Corporations control much of what we believe, They control our educational system and decide what our children or us learn. They control our newsmedia and decide what they want us to hear and know. They control the market, prices, our living standards, what healthcare we receive, what you can earn , and what property you can afford to own by taxation. To think that anyone of us is 100% right is unreal. Something is going on. The skies are no longer natural, the weather is no longer natural, and people are even acting stranger than normal. Cancer, and respiratory problems are increasing rapidly. Our crops are not what they use to be. People are noticing the contrails forming clouds and blocking the sun. Air and water samples are containing higher levels of barium and aluminum. They maybe protecting us from something, they me be playing God ( which our scientists and medical professionals also try to do) in the name of helping humanity. Like our wars in Iraq,Libya,Yemen,Syria, and soon to be Iran. We all know we have been lied to from these corporations, nobody can deny that fact. I do not know the truth . But from experience and what I see, I cannot agree with your theories either. Do I believe they want to depopulate the earth some, Yes. Do I believe they have my best interest at heart , NO. Do I believe that they withhold alot of information from us and give us false information,Yes. Something is going on, and I don't believe we are getting the truth on what that is. I do see alot of George orwells book "1984" happening. I am seeing stuff happen that I would no way in hell believe would ever happen here in the U.S.A.. I have researched alot on my own, and am amazed at alot of the disinformation I believed. Am I confused,you betcha, but I do see others agenda's being not what the majority of the people have in mind for america or matching what they construe as the truth. Maybe none of us are right, but following the money seems to have the best results. And money does seem to be the root of evil.

 

[farmer joe]

The science is flawed by the interests of whomever is doing the science. Whether it be money, honor, or prestige. Which makes it hard to conclude any study based on others science, as being the truth..

 

[thaumaturgy]

For me, the jury is still out on certain claims. There is no doubt climate change is occurring. It always has been. At one point, the atmosphere was ammonia gases. Also, the entire surface of the earth was liquid .... not in the water sense, but in the molten rock sense.

As many of you know, there are a bunch of CO2 emissions which occur naturally ... like the oceans, for example. And, let's not forget all the volcano activity along with many meteor, asteroid and comet strikes.


All I want to know is this - Out of 100% total CO2 emissions from all sources, what percentage is attributed to human activity?

First off: a lot of what we know about anthropogenic global impact of our carbon comes from our understanding of the NATURAL carbon cycle.

As a nice simplified graph here's a comparison of the various main fluxes of CO2 (this is limited to the biggies):

(SOURCE)

Land and plants obvious release and absorb carbon but the balance is pretty clear (439 Gt/y flux out and 450Gt/y resorbed). The ocean is similarly balanced with 332Gt/y out and 338Gt/y in. Humans are adding an addition 29Gt/y. But when we burn coal for power we don't really "resorb" that CO2 in our systems. We have to rely on nature to act as a sink.

Now here's the important bit: We can trace "our" carbon vs other sources of it using ISOTOPIC SIGNATURES of the Carbon.

As you may remember from your intro chemistry classes isotopes of an element are the same element but have different numbers of neutrons in the nucleus. While all carbons are the same element some have a neutron or two more than others. AND THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE.

For instance:

plants prefer C with 6 neutrons over C with 7 neutrons, so plants tend to build up a reservoir in themselves of "light" C-12 nuclei. So when you burn a plant it releases, on average, more 12-C than 13-C. Same thing for coal since it comes from plants, algae and bacteria.

And what we see is that after about the middle 19th century the isotopic signature of C in the atmosphere has dropped lower than at any time in the last 10,000 years which is EXACTLY what we would expect from the significant increase in human combustion of vegetal derived fuels like coal. (Source)

In addition, before we mucked up the radioactive carbon isotopic signature in the atmosphere during the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons there had been a decrease in the amount of 14-C in the atmospheric C. Again exactly what one would expect from the burning of ancient carbon like coal which has much lower to almost no 14-C as expected (14-C has a half-life around 5730 years or so, so coal a couple million years old will have very, very, very little 14-C)
(Source)

So you see, when we stress the system we not only leave our "fingerprints" but we also see how our additional C is not necessarily "guaranteed" a sink.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Aren't earthquakes caused by tectonic plates expanding?

Earthquakes are usually caused by stresses induced by the plates moving around (at least in gross terms). I've not hear the "expanding" hypothesis before. It would take a LOT of heat to significantly "expand" a slab of rock the size of something like the Pacific Plate which is 103 million square km and probably on average about 100km thick so you have about 10 billion cubic km of rock to "expand".

You can look up the "thermal expansion coefficient" of basalt (~5.4X10^-6/degC --source) and the heat capacity of basalt (~0.84kJ/kg K --source) and you can calculate for yourself how many zillions of kJ of energy you'd require to expand 10 billion cubic km of basalt. (I'd do it but I've already given you the numbers).

The real player here is the heat internal to the earth which moves the plates around (along with a few smaller movers like "ridge push" and "slab pull"). That heat is from the decay of radioactive materials in the mantle and the residual heat from accretion of the planet.

So the heat budget there is a bit different than what we get from the sun and in our atmosphere.

The sun coming up in the morning heats the earth, and there's sufficient coefficient of expansion [I believe it's called] to move these plates around, causing the ground to shake.

That isn't what moves the plates.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Well for one thing Rick those graphs show an upward trend up to the year 2000 well it is 2012 now not 2000 and that upward trend is gone now and we are looking at 15 years of static temperatures.

So are you saying that the "drop off in stations to bias to find a warmer trend FAILED?So how does this "conspiracy work"? Bias the data so you see warmer temperatures but you don't see warmer temperatures but the conspiracy was put in place to show warmer temperatures.

What a great conspiracy! Wow!

 

[thaumaturgy]

The science is flawed by the interests of whomever is doing the science. Whether it be money, honor, or prestige. Which makes it hard to conclude any study based on others science, as being the truth..

Hey, I'm a scientist...so thanks for slagging us all!

It feels good to know that science is all a biased lie.

If only science had ever provided anything useful to the world we'd have reason to believe it.

But we all know that all of us scientists are driven only to make more money, and since many of us have lots of education we can screw you rubes out of your money using our BRILLIANT LIES.

Please, give me a break. I'm so desperately tired of constant attacks on scientists.

GIVE IT A REST. You might want to apologize to scientists first, but then give it a rest.

(I'd make a nasty comment about "farmers" but I used to be a USDA research scientist so I actually respect what farmers do and I used to essentially work for them. Do you know how much $$$ I got for my patents while at the USDA? -zip- zilch nada. Nothing. Why? Because the USDA research service was set up so that the technology we developed would be either freely or at a greatly reduced price licensed to agriculture.)

 

[RickG]

Hey, I'm a scientist...so thanks for slagging us all!

It feels good to know that science is all a biased lie.

If only science had ever provided anything useful to the world we'd have reason to believe it.

But we all know that all of us scientists are driven only to make more money, and since many of us have lots of education we can screw you rubes out of your money using our BRILLIANT LIES.

Please, give me a break. I'm so desperately tired of constant attacks on scientists.

GIVE IT A REST. You might want to apologize to scientists first, but then give it a rest.

(I'd make a nasty comment about "farmers" but I used to be a USDA research scientist so I actually respect what farmers do and I used to essentially work for them. Do you know how much $$$ I got for my patents while at the USDA? -zip- zilch nada. Nothing. Why? Because the USDA research service was set up so that the technology we developed would be either freely or at a greatly reduced price licensed to agriculture.)

Thanks for that post . I too am sick and tired of the continuous belittlement of science and scientists, especially by people who do not have any kind of scientific background, much less having worked in any scientific discipline, which is more than obvious from their posts.

 

[AV1611VET]

Thanks for that post . I too am sick and tired of the continuous belittlement of science and scientists, especially by people who do not have any kind of scientific background, much less having worked in any scientific discipline, which is more than obvious from their posts.

And you haven't even been here a year?

You must have a low tolerance threshold then.

There are some here, like Split Rock and Thaumaturgy, that have put up with us for six years.

They may not agree with us, but they respect our opinions.

-- Right, guys?

 

[Nabobalis]

Lets face it, any information we get from here or elsewhere can be disinformation. Corporations control much of what we believe, They control our educational system and decide what our children or us learn. They control our newsmedia and decide what they want us to hear and know. They control the market, prices, our living standards, what healthcare we receive, what you can earn , and what property you can afford to own by taxation.

I'd suggest to get off your PC, it might be indoctrinating you via bran waves emitted from the screen.

To think that anyone of us is 100% right is unreal. Something is going on. The skies are no longer natural, the weather is no longer natural, and people are even acting stranger than normal.

Stranger how?

Cancer, and respiratory problems are increasing rapidly. Our crops are not what they use to be.

You are some how surprised that as people as living longer and are more numerous that people get cancer more? Let alone repository problems when more people are living in cities.

People are noticing the contrails forming clouds and blocking the sun.

You know, what clouds do.

Air and water samples are containing higher levels of barium and aluminum.

Source? Let alone the major issue that how can either of them be airborne, I'm pretty sure that they are both are metals.

They maybe protecting us from something, they me be playing God ( which our scientists and medical professionals also try to do)

You mean trying to save lives? Thats what medical professionals do.

But from experience and what I see, I cannot agree with your theories either.

That is not how we find knowledge, you need evidence that can be verified. Personal experiences do not count.

Do I believe they want to depopulate the earth some, Yes.

Who are they? The population of the Earth needs to be in check, condoms and the pill for all with education.

Do I believe they have my best interest at heart , NO. Do I believe that they withhold alot of information from us and give us false information,Yes. Something is going on, and I don't believe we are getting the truth on what that is. I do see alot of George orwells book "1984" happening. I am seeing stuff happen that I would no way in hell believe would ever happen here in the U.S.A.. I have researched alot on my own, and am amazed at alot of the disinformation I believed. Am I confused,you betcha, but I do see others agenda's being not what the majority of the people have in mind for america or matching what they construe as the truth. Maybe none of us are right, but following the money seems to have the best results. And money does seem to be the root of evil.

Ok, well enjoy your fantasy world, I suggest you might want to seek medical help.

 

[Nabobalis]

And you haven't even been here a year?

You must have a low tolerance threshold then.

There are some here, like Split Rock and Thaumaturgy, that have put up with us for six years.

They may not agree with us, but they respect our opinions.

-- Right, guys?

I suspect they don't respect your opinions, they might like you but not your opinions.

 

[AV1611VET]

I suspect they don't respect your opinions,

Should I respect theirs then?

 

[Nabobalis]

Should I respect theirs then?

That is your choice.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

They are not saying the sky is falling. Try looking at climate science projections and compare it with actual recorded data. Arctic ice mass loss is far exceeding best estimate scenarios. The same is true for sea level rise and CO2 emissions.

Observed global CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production compared with IPCC emissions scenarios. The coloured area covers all scenarios used to project climate change by the IPCC (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).

Sea level change. Tide gauge data are indicated in red and satellite data in blue. The grey band shows the projections of the IPCC Third Assessment report (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).

Observed (red line) and modelled September Arctic sea ice extent in millions of square kilometres. Solid black line gives the average of 13 IPCC AR4 models while dashed black lines represent their range. The 2009 minimum has recently been calculated at 5.10 million km2, the third lowest year on record and still well below the IPCC worst case scenario (Copenhagen Diagnosis 2009).




Graphs in any science are not plotted from raw data. They are done so through appropriate statical methods. If you would follow the NASA links I gave you and source the links they provide for data and methods for analyzing that data you would see there are no adjustments, unless you think a 5 year moving average is adjusting data. All of the data used by NASA if freely available along with software to process it. Nothing is being withheld.



Your use of derogatory comments reveal that you are only interested in your own ideological agenda rather than the science. I suggest you dispense with accusations of wrong doing without evidence. If you think you have supporting evidence, then present it.



Name one lie and support the accusation.



There are no trillions of dollars given to climate science research. You made that up. And grant money given to academic research is acquired the same way in all areas of academic study, both scientific and non scientific.



I believe you've got it backwards. Practicing climate scientists are making no such remarks. Conversely, a number of climate scientists have received death threats.

Death threats, intimidation and abuse: climate change scientist Michael E. Mann counts the cost of honesty | Science | The Observer



Yes, I'm aware of the Oregon petition. Something you may not know about it is that almost none of them have no experience or even background in climatology. In fact, many are connected with the social sciences.

Conversely, when you look at all the published science by climate scientists, well over 97% of them agree that global warming is anthropogenic and an problem for the future.

Anderegg 2010 And please follow thing Anderegg link. It is published research by the National Academy of Sciences.

Additionally:

Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Astronomical Society
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Physics
• American Meteorological Society
• American Physical Society
• Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
• British Antarctic Survey
• Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
• Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
• Environmental Protection Agency
• European Federation of Geologists
• European Geosciences Union
• European Physical Society
• Federation of American Scientists
• Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
• Geological Society of America
• Geological Society of Australia
• International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
• International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
• National Center for Atmospheric Research
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• Royal Meteorological Society
• Royal Society of the UK

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. 11 countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:

• Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
• Royal Society of Canada
• Chinese Academy of Sciences
• Academie des Sciences (France)
• Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
• Indian National Science Academy
• Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
• Science Council of Japan
• Russian Academy of Sciences
• Royal Society (United Kingdom)
• National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

A letter from 18 scientific organizations to US Congress states:

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."​

The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), including the following bodies:

• African Academy of Sciences
• Cameroon Academy of Sciences
• Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
• Kenya National Academy of Sciences
• Madagascar's National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences
• Nigerian Academy of Sciences
• l'Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
• Uganda National Academy of Sciences
• Academy of Science of South Africa
• Tanzania Academy of Sciences
• Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
• Zambia Academy of Sciences
• Sudan Academy of Sciences

That would be great if it were a natural cycle, but thus far no one on either side of the debate has been able to show any natural cycle that is causing the current warming trend. Conversely, the physics of and effects of CO2 have been well know for over 150 years. The causes and effects are fairly well known and understood from what is found in the paleoclimate record and what has been directly observed. There are unknowns and uncertainty, but that is in the details, not the known facts.


Again, I ask you to dispense with the accusations and name calling and engage in specific scientific discussion.



What is causing the current warming.

wow Rick, taking this a little persoan? It's a hoax buddy.

A phenomenally well-written and civil post with citations, graphs, and sources - only to respond with some non sequitur about RickG taking it "persoan (sic)"? Not even an attempt to refute the data given? Just a resounding, "It's a hoax buddy".

Now I wonder who comes off as being in the right, as being supported by the evidence - RickG (who comes replete with sources and evidence), or idscience (who... doesn't)?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Should I respect theirs then?

You are not required to respect anyone's anything!

I am fascinated, though, that when your fellow co-religionist, follower of Jesus Christ, comes on here and suggests that one whole group is just driven by getting money that the only time you weigh in is not to caution your brother in Christ (FarmerJoe) against passing negative judgements against people he doesn't even know...but rather when someone responds to FarmerJoe's comment.

I find that fascinating.

 

[TheBear]

Since the EPA and other environmental standards were developed, CO2 emissions have actually decreased in the US. Question is - what industrial countries have no change, or are increasing CO2 emissions?