Climate Change!

[thaumaturgy]

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?

Our decrease is small, but indeed China has taken over as lead emitter of CO2.

According to the CDIAC:

Much of the 5.9% global increase from 2009 to 2010 is due to increased emissions from the world's largest fossil-fuel emitter, the People's Republic of China, where emissions rose 10% to 2.247 Tg-C.


Emissions from the United States were 1,498 Tg-C, up by almost 60 Tg-C, or 4%, of the 2009 estimates of 1,438 Tg-C. The record year for the United States was 2007, with estimated emissions of 1,589 Tg-C. The 2010 total is about 94% of that value, reflecting economic conditions.(SOURCE)

(Emphasis added)


So to say we have "gone down" is a bit oversimplifying. 2010 was about 94% of the high of 2007 and 2010 was above 2009.


Here's 2009 graphic showing the "trends"

 

[idscience]

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)?

it has been presented time and time again. You alarmists just ignore it or stay its wrong becaue it doesn't fit your personal view. Evidence is presented, 5 posts later, "why don't you back your statements up" your boring everyone.

 

[TheBear]

Okay. Thanks, thaumaturgy.

I guess I was misinformed about the decrease in US emissions since the 70's.

 

[RickG]

Should I respect theirs then?

That would be the Christian thing to do would it not.

 

[TheBear]

Paleo data shows that a natural rise of atmospheric CO2 of 100 ppm generally takes 5 to 20 thousand years. Since 1880 it has risen from 280 ppm to over 390 ppm. Isotope analysis shows that the 100 ppm increase is almost entirely due to human emissions (Ghosh 2003). For the past 800,000 years (Vostok ice cores) CO2 has averaged less than 280 ppm and the current level hasn't been seen for over 5 million years. There's a good discussion on how it is known the rise in CO2 is due to human activities at Real Climate. RealClimate: How do we know that recent CO2 increases are due to human activities?

Also, look at the (Ghosh 2003) paper.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

Thank you, Rick. You've given me a lot to look at.

 

[thaumaturgy]

it has been presented time and time again. You alarmists just ignore it or stay its wrong becaue it doesn't fit your personal view. Evidence is presented, 5 posts later, "why don't you back your statements up" your boring everyone.

idscience, it is a common complaint of both sides that "you don't present data", but in point of fact, more actual scientific discussion comes from the agw side as opposed to the skeptic side.

In this thread, as an example you cite:

The Telegraph (in this post)

Evolutionnointelligenceallowed Blog (in this post)

The Telegraph (again) and a Youtube cartoon (in this post)

Friends of Science blog, ScienceDaily, DigitalJournal, TheNewAmerican blog, TheDailyTech, Examiner newspaper, Russ Campbell blog, oh yeah and a Penn and Teller video. Along with the Oregon Petition Project (in this post)

The Guardian Newspaper and the Telegraph, "fakeclimate.com", "nofrakkingconsensus.com", (in this post)

The Spectator magazine (in this post)

NASA, Nat Geo, The Mail newspaper, C3Headlines, and a nasty picture of someone from Climate Depot (in this post) -- to be fair you finally got around to citing NASA and NatGeo!

So I see precious few actual scientific citations in there. In fact nothing that would count as a peer reviewed "article" or primary source. A lot of newspapers and blogs. And yes, you did cite NASA and NatGeo once. So kudos on accidentally running across some science sites.

Now look at RickG's posts:

Church et al, 2011 journal article (in this post)

NASA GISS Data source (in this post)

Mann et al, 2008 journal article (in this post)

Copenhagen Diagnosis, Science magazine, Anderegg, 2010 journal article, 27 individual international scientific organizations in a list (in this post)

NSIDC (in this post)

SkepticalScience blog (in this post)

NASA (in this post)

Moberg et al, 2005 journal article (in this post)

Ghosh, 2003 journal article (in this post)

Mann et al., 2008 (in this post)

National Academy of Sciences (in this post)

He posted 17 graphs, you posted 2. Technically yours was one graph posted twice. But I didn't check to see if any of Rick's were twice-posted.

You did, however, post a Penn and Teller video and a cartoon featuring Michael Mann.

So I'm sort of interested why your posts are dominated by "blogs" and "newspaper articles" whereas Rick's (as just one example, there are other scientists on this thread who have weighed in with other references and detailed explanations) are dominated mostly by journal articles with only a couple blog citations and a smattering of NASA citations.

Sometimes quality of content does count.

 

[thaumaturgy]

That would be the Christian thing to do would it not.

I don't expect him to turn the other cheek (Matt 5:39). I don't respect his views on science so I don't expect respect in return. So at least I'm living up to Luke 6:31.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

idscience, it is a common complaint of both sides that "you don't present data", but in point of fact, more actual scientific discussion comes from the agw side as opposed to the skeptic side.

In this thread, as an example you cite:

The Telegraph (in this post)

Evolutionnointelligenceallowed Blog (in this post)

The Telegraph (again) and a Youtube cartoon (in this post)

Friends of Science blog, ScienceDaily, DigitalJournal, TheNewAmerican blog, TheDailyTech, Examiner newspaper, Russ Campbell blog, oh yeah and a Penn and Teller video. Along with the Oregon Petition Project (in this post)

The Guardian Newspaper and the Telegraph, "fakeclimate.com", "nofrakkingconsensus.com", (in this post)

The Spectator magazine (in this post)

NASA, Nat Geo, The Mail newspaper, C3Headlines, and a nasty picture of someone from Climate Depot (in this post) -- to be fair you finally got around to citing NASA and NatGeo!

So I see precious few actual scientific citations in there. In fact nothing that would count as a peer reviewed "article" or primary source. A lot of newspapers and blogs. And yes, you did cite NASA and NatGeo once. So kudos on accidentally running across some science sites.

Now look at RickG's posts:

Church et al, 2011 journal article (in this post)

NASA GISS Data source (in this post)

Mann et al, 2008 journal article (in this post)

Copenhagen Diagnosis, Science magazine, Anderegg, 2010 journal article, 27 individual international scientific organizations in a list (in this post)

NSIDC (in this post)

SkepticalScience blog (in this post)

NASA (in this post)

Moberg et al, 2005 journal article (in this post)

Ghosh, 2003 journal article (in this post)

Mann et al., 2008 (in this post)

National Academy of Sciences (in this post)

He posted 17 graphs, you posted 2. Technically yours was one graph posted twice. But I didn't check to see if any of Rick's were twice-posted.

You did, however, post a Penn and Teller video and a cartoon featuring Michael Mann.

So I'm sort of interested why your posts are dominated by "blogs" and "newspaper articles" whereas Rick's (as just one example, there are other scientists on this thread who have weighed in with other references and detailed explanations) are dominated mostly by journal articles with only a couple blog citations and a smattering of NASA citations.

Sometimes quality of content does count.

Reps, a thousand times reps, if only for citing every last source

 

[Greatcloud]

Mar 11, 2012
GHCN and GISS Adjustments Affect 40% Of The Arctic with artificial warming
By Paul Homewood

There has been much discussion recently about temperature adjustments made by GHCN in Iceland and Greenland, which have had the effect of reducing historic temperature levels, thereby creating an artificial warming trend. These can easily be checked at the GISS website, where both the old and new datasets can be viewed as graph and table data, here and here.

It has now been identified that similar adjustments have been made at nearly every station close to the Arctic Circle, between Greenland and, going East,via Norway to Siberia, i.e 56 Degrees West to 86 Degrees East, about 40% of the circumference.

So it is perhaps time to recap where we are now.

Background

The NCDC has produced the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN), a dataset of monthly mean temperatures, since the 1990�s. Version 2 was introduced in 1997 and included “Methods for removing inhomogeneities from the data record associated with non-climatic influences such as changes in instrumentation, station environment, and observing practices that occur over time “. The GHCN datasets are used by both GISS and HADCRUT for calculation of global temperatures, as well as NCDC themselves.

In May 2011, NCDC brought out Version 3, which “enhanced the overall quality of the dataset”, but made little difference in overall terms. However, only two months later in July, a Google Summer Student, a graduate called Daniel Rothenberg, was brought in to convert some of the GHCN software and make modifications to “correct software coding errors”. The result was Version 3.1, which went live in November 2011.

It is this latest version that has thrown up the Arctic adjustments we are now seeing.

Until December, GISS used Version 2 unadjusted temperatures. Since then, they have changed to using Version 3.1 adjusted temperatures.

Basis of Homogeneity Adjustments

It is worth taking time to be clear why temperature adjustments are made (or should be). As far as GHCN are concerned, they explain their logic thus :-

Surface weather stations are frequently subject to minor relocations throughout their history of operation. Observing stations may also undergo changes in instrumentation as measurement technology evolves. Furthermore, observing practices may vary through time, and the land use/land cover in the vicinity of an observing site can be altered by either natural or man-made causes. Any such modifications to the circumstances behind temperature measurements have the potential to alter a thermometer’s microclimate exposure characteristics or otherwise change the bias of measurements relative to those taken under previous circumstances. The manifestation of such changes is often an abrupt shift in the mean level of temperature readings that is unrelated to true climate variations and trends. Ultimately, these artifacts (also known as inhomogeneities) confound attempts to quantify climate variability and change because the magnitude of the artifact can be as large as or larger than the true background climate signal. The process of removing the impact of non-climatic changes in climate series is called homogenization, an essential but sometimes overlooked component of climate analysis.

It is quite clear. Their algorithms should look for abrupt changes that are not reflected at nearby stations. It has nothing to do with “averaging out regional temperatures” as is sometimes claimed.

GISS also make homogeneity adjustments, but for totally different reasons. In their case, it is to make an allowance for the Urban Heat Island Effect (which is not spotted by GHCN because it is a slow change).

Effect of The Adjustments

Appendix A lists every current GHCN station with records back to 1940,that lie between Greenland, at a latitude of 56 W, around to a point about midway across Siberia at 86 E and which are situated close to the Arctic Circle. The table shows the adjustment made by GHCN for 1940 data. Out of 26 stations, the adjustment has reduced actual temperatures in 23 cases, many substantially. In contrast, 2 remain unchanged and only one has a positive adjustment (and this is insignificant). As a crude average, the adjustment works out at a reduction of 0.70 C.

These adjustments typically extend back to the beginning of the station records (though Reykjavik is an exception) and most continue at the same level till about 1970. ( Some of the Russian stations last longer - e.g. Ostrov Dikson’s disappears in 2009).

By 2011, however, the adjustments disappear at ALL of these sites. In other words, an artificial warming trend has been manufactured.

It is worth spelling out two points :-

1) Within this arc of longitude, there are no other stations within the Arctic Circle.

2) With the exception of Lerwick and Vestmanneyja, I can find no stations, in the region, below a latitude of 64 North with similar adjustments. Why is 64 North significant? GISS produce zonal temperature data, and their “Arctic” zone goes from 64 North to the Pole. Coincidence?

Is there any justification for adjusting?

Trausti Jonsson, a senior climatologist at the Iceland Met Office, has already confirmed that he sees no reason for the adjustments in Iceland and that they themselves have already made any adjustments necessary due to station moves etc before sending the data onto GHCN.

Clearly the fact that nearly every station in the region has been adjusted disproves the idea that these sites are outliers, which give biased results not supported by nearby stations.

GHCN were asked in January to investigate this issue and so far have failed to come up with any explanation. Unless they can do this, the assumption must be that the adjustments have been created by faulty software.

Discussion

In global terms, these few stations make no tangible difference to overall temperatures. However, they do make a significant difference to temperatures in the Arctic, which are derived from a small number of stations such as these and then projected over hundreds of miles.

Across much of the Arctic, temperatures were as high in the years around 1940 as they are now. History should not be revised at the whims of an algorithm.

What should happen next? In my view, GHCN should immediately revert to Version 3.0 until the matter is properly investigated and any issues resolved. They maybe just need to put Version 3.1 down as a bad experience and start from scratch again. I believe they also need to seriously review their Quality Control procedures and question how these anomalies were allowed to arise without being flagged up.

It should not be up to independent observers to have to do this.


I originally set this table up yesterday, 9th March. Today I noticed a few had changed slightly, presumably at the monthly update, so have amended them. It appears GHCN are still fiddling with their algorithms as the same thing occurred last month.

 

[Cromulent]

It's a conspiracy:

 

[Greatcloud]

Popular Technology.net: 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

There are plenty of papers refuting AGW here we see 900.

Here is more on the fakegate that Peter Gleick commited

We are approaching the 40th anniversary of the original Watergate burglaries. Although everyone has heard of the scandal, most people have either forgotten or are too young to remember that the purpose of the Watergate burglaries was to copy documents listing donors to the Democratic Party and their financial contributions, either hoping or expecting to find evidence of contributions from “bad” sources (the Cuban government).
Like the Watergate burglars, the objective of Gleick’s fraud against Heartland was to obtain a list of donors, expecting to find evidence of “bad” contributions to their climate program (fossil fuel corporations and the Koch brothers.) The identity of objectives is really quite remarkable. The technology of the Watergate burglars (break-in and photography) was different than Gleick’s (fraud and email). And the consequences of being caught have thus far been very different.

Fakegate: Another Global Warming Scandal

 

[Greatcloud]

12 more glaciers that haven’t heard the news about global warming

 

[idscience]

idscience, it is a common complaint of both sides that "you don't present data", but in point of fact, more actual scientific discussion comes from the agw side as opposed to the skeptic side.

Yeh but our side hasn't been proven to be frauds so we have actually posted more useful information.

 

[Nabobalis]

Yeh but our side hasn't been proven to be frauds so we have actually posted more useful information.

"Our side" hasn't either. Unless you want to back that statement up?

 

[farmer joe]

Ok, I apologizie and am sorry If I offended any real scientists. But am I seeing alot of frauds being mentioned now?

 

[RickG]

Popular Technology.net: 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm

There are plenty of papers refuting AGW here we see 900.

Here is more on the fakegate that Peter Gleick commited

We are approaching the 40th anniversary of the original Watergate burglaries. Although everyone has heard of the scandal, most people have either forgotten or are too young to remember that the purpose of the Watergate burglaries was to copy documents listing donors to the Democratic Party and their financial contributions, either hoping or expecting to find evidence of contributions from “bad” sources (the Cuban government).
Like the Watergate burglars, the objective of Gleick’s fraud against Heartland was to obtain a list of donors, expecting to find evidence of “bad” contributions to their climate program (fossil fuel corporations and the Koch brothers.) The identity of objectives is really quite remarkable. The technology of the Watergate burglars (break-in and photography) was different than Gleick’s (fraud and email). And the consequences of being caught have thus far been very different.

Fakegate: Another Global Warming Scandal

Poptech's 900 don't pan out. Even Roger Pielike, Sr., a high profile skeptic, takes issue with Poptech's list. Most do not question AGW and quite a few of them aren't even papers, much less peer review.

Conversely,

Expert credibility in climate change

 

[thaumaturgy]

Yeh but our side hasn't been proven to be frauds so we have actually posted more useful information.

Actually so far no one has proven Fraud on the part of the agw scientists either.

But don't let the "facts" get in the way.

As for your "useful information", well, speaking as a scientist: when I want to know something about the science I usually tend to go to a refereed journal rather than a newspaper as my primary source.

But newspapers are easier to read and don't require any real understanding to internalize. So I can see why some people lard their posts up with references to newspaper sites.

 

[AV1611VET]

Actually so far no one has proven Fraud on the part of the agw scientists either.

But don't let the "facts" get in the way.

As for your "useful information", well, speaking as a scientist: when I want to know something about the science I usually tend to go to a refereed journal rather than a newspaper as my primary source.

But newspapers are easier to read and don't require any real understanding to internalize. So I can see why some people lard their posts up with references to newspaper sites.

What's a 'refereed journal'?

 

[thaumaturgy]

Ok, I apologizie and am sorry If I offended any real scientists. But am I seeing alot of frauds being mentioned now?

Joe, thanks! I appreciate that!

The continuous mention of "fraud" is grossly wrong. Since climategate broke there have been about 8 independent studies and so far none have found any fraudulent manipulation of data.

The worst that has been found is that some people failed to comply with FOIA requests in a timely manner.

Some skeptics on these boards parrot an incredibly wrong piece of information decreeing "fraud" where none has been found. This is what happens when people with a loose understanding of what it means to make such an acceusation and you'll note that none of them can back it up with anything substantive.

If there is fraud anywhere in this then it has yet to be seen as systemic.

Climate science is like any other human endeavor and certainly there must be some bad people in there somewhere. But it is hardly "systemic" to the world of climatologists.

 

[thaumaturgy]

What's a 'refereed journal'?

A journal that uses peer reviewers.