Contrary to public opinion, that's not temperature data. That's someone's opinion of what temperatures were/should've been. And they keep getting changed
Well there you go, the article was actually pretty good - except for the tiny part that was quoted here by the GP which severely misrepresents the state of science.
CO2 levels have been an order of magnitude higher before, albeit a few millions years ago. Most plants evolved at levels several times higher than today.
Our biosphere is currently CO2 starved. That's bad.
Yeah, you should be somewhat wary of trusting Wikipedia on AGW - if you think there's heated debate on the issue at Slashdot that's nothing compared to the editor wars there.
Anyway, on CO2 Science you'll find enough "local" MWP/LIA papers for a nice global integration.
I assume you haven't read the Climategate contents then, it's impossible for anyone who claims to follow the scientific method to do so and then claim there's no sign of malfeasance. Again, do not trust the reporting - study it yourself. I have.
As for Arrhenius, a fellow Swede, is this were I reply that he wasn't not a "climate scientis"?;) He did calculations on greenhouse gasses, but that's not the same thing as what I wrote with regards to models and the need for CO2 as forcing agent.
(Arrhenius, btw, thought increased levels of CO2 would be benificial. I'm quite sure they are, as indicated by the greening of the biosphere)
If you're a scientist there should be no need for me to explain why the Earth's atmosphere and a laboratory are different. Convection, saturation and huge oceans are only the beginning of such an explanation and is best left to any sensible reader.
Finally, with regards to ENSO. What can heat oceans? Not the atmosphere, the heat budget goes in the other direction. The only thing that can heat the oceans would be the sun through short wave radiation, and while we don't see huge changes in the visible spectre (TSI - sometimes confused as being the total!) when moderated through clouds we easily get changes in radiation absorbed by the oceans large enough to cause ENSO like variations.
It looks to me like you're just trying desperately to state that only CO2 can be responsible for most of the current warming.
Why?:) Not trying to falsify and finding other explanations is not science.
Climategate (yes, that Climategate. Don't trust the reporting of it on Realclimate - read the emails yourself, look through the documents and data) proved beyond reasonable doubt that some climate researchers, interestingly the same as behind Realclimate, are absolutely not:
willing to publish results that overturn scientific consensus, even if data are preliminary
That's one of the main reasons why I don't ever trust Realclimate on anything that has to do with science. Gavin especially.
Now I do not in any way believe there is a conspiracy or coverup. We're seeing the normal slow process of shifts in ideas back and forth, it simply takes time for new thoughts to blend through.
The CO2 hypothesis only gained acceptance when we realized that the climate models we had a few decades ago couldn't model the observed temperatures if we didn't add a forcing agent.
One of my reasons for linking to Tisdale's work (not peer reviewed, granted, let's see if any one of the offers for co-publishing he got comes through) was that he shows that maybe the models didn't need CO2 as a forcing agent at all, maybe it was just us not understanding the ocean's reaction to ENSO events.
I'm also somewhat tired of the whole "peer reviewed" discussion. Yes it's a way to get a somewhat reasonable input filter on what you read, but it doesn't in any way mean that things that aren't peer reviewed cannot be correct. You just need to do the filtering yourself, and Tisdale's reasoning and data look valid so far to me.
This is getting nowhere - but I'll leave you with an observation. You're doing advocacy (as are the people behind Realclimate) - I'm doing science. Observations trump models - always. If models cannot be verified by observation they aren't scientific.
You'll realize this in a few years;)
(PS: Plate tectonics was discredited by leading scientists in the field. That's why real science has nothing to do with consensus, ever)
So, again, what do you believe you will accomplish by posting lies?
The complete set of cables is still in the hands of other media organizations as well, thus Assange is not doing the things you claim. Wikileaks is a place where someone can go if they want to leak stuff, and they will then make sure it becomes available.
In reality, once we found that out we put a stop to it. Since the US apparently lied to us, we had to find it out ourselves:
Confirmation that the planes were transporting prisoners came in April 2006 after a daring “surveillance operation” was ordered by Swedish security service Säpo and carried out without the knowledge of the Americans.
On Säpo’s orders, Swedish military intelligence agents dressed up as airport service personnel and boarded the plane. The agents reported back that the plane was carrying prisoners.
[---]
no more secret American prisoner transports have landed in Sweden since 2006
They've released it all to the participating old media magazines, and apparently other have access as well*. The logic, which you don't buy, is also based on earlier observations and thus can be said to be based in fact. It also seems those who have access to all of them believe the reasoning to be sound since no one has dumped them all yet.
No. Wikileaks has realised since earlier big leaks that releasing everything at once causes information overflow and the individual atrocities don't get enough attention.
Releasing the cables over a prolonged period of time allows press coverage, discussion and digestion.
In Sweden we're currently somewhat disturbed by the Wikileaks-revealed fact that several laws having been imposed on us during the last few years were dictated by the US, with a threat of sanctions if we didn't implement them even though it was known the populace weren't in favor.
The NASA study was a reply to your comment about records in highs outnumbering lows. You seem to be discussing something else now. As far as I recall Watts has a few things to say about Menne though.
Climate models (emphasis on plural!) produce results better than random guessing. Single climate models (singular) don't. This is where you say "aha!" and remember the old thought experiment in statistics with regards to coin flipping. That's, again, why in a long bet I would want my CO2-hugging opponent to select _one_ model from today's crop and stick with it. I'd do the same, of course.
Realclimate censor things they don't like, and they themselves are the judges of what's not to like. That's advocacy, not science:) Please remember I'm a strict Popperian. Feel free to publish your hypothesis and it will be debunked if it's not good.
Changing the weighting of a model to fit the facts, after the fact, is not "new understanding".
(PS: I find it somewhat humorous that the way Foster et al debunks McLean et al is similar to how the Mann hockeystick has been thoroughly destroyed. There's definitely a lack of professional statisticians verifying climate papers)
1) No, UHI is not well compensated for. I linked to that NASA study for that very reason - what it found was that the effect is much larger than anyone had thought before (thus invalidating the papers you list).
Did you know that flags used for the station data in model runs aren't time dependent? I.e, if a station happens to be considered urban from 1996 onwards that is then considered to be true for all earlier observations as well, when it in reality was rural. This causes old temperatures to be artificially lowered over time.
2) On warm oceanic cycles you only need to follow the Tisdale link I gave you for more SST information. I'm somewhat confused, it's a well known fact that there are cycles where the oceans give up and/or absorb less or more heat to the atmosphere.
3) If climate models don't make predictions then they cannot be used for policy making. Since they are, they thus make predictions. All predictions made so far have been falsified (yes, that includes Hansen's - please never ever link to realclimate. That's an advocacy site not interested in real science - they admit to censor things that don't fit their agenda). If you make enough predictions some of them are bound to be within the error bars of observed data though - but that doesn't mean anything in itself.
4) There can be any number of reasons for a cooler stratosphere, lack of falsification is not the same as verification.
I would agree with you with regards to rerunning models with actual forcings as they happen - if no weighting is changed. As far as I know, that's not true, and thus the models aren't verified by observations but constantly changed to fit the facts, after the fact. That's not science.
Sorry to hear that! If there were conditions communicated to you and then not fulfilled (either by your carrier or from us) then you should absolutely let them/us know. Tethering isn't officially supported in Android 2.1 though, and when it comes to "rooting" (which would be able to get you tethering on that version and earlier) we need to fulfill our obligations to all our customers which include the carriers as well.
I actually tried to make a long bet with someone who, like you, believe CO2 controls our climate a week ago. I would be making it very public, and I would like "the other side" to be a publically recognizable entity, but my suggestion was for $1500.
Short version: We'd both select _one_ climate model, he one from the CO2-crowd (note - a single one) and I one based on the solar->magnetic->clouds->oceans->atmosphere hypothesis, and in ten years we would see which model had tracked the observations most closely.
Unfortunately it seems he wasn't willing. I'm assuming that's because he knows that, so far, no CO2-based climate model has been successful at predicting anything when verified against observations;)
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed, he's using data. The issue is what data.
Contrary to public opinion, that's not temperature data. That's someone's opinion of what temperatures were/should've been. And they keep getting changed
http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/26/nasa-giss-adjusting-the-adjustments/
I'll try!
"In northern Europe, snow cover will decrease" - IPCC 2007 [very high confidence]
I failed :(
Well there you go, the article was actually pretty good - except for the tiny part that was quoted here by the GP which severely misrepresents the state of science.
Not surprisingly, that quote is from the IPCC.
There's some research on correlation between solar minima and increased volcanic and tectonic activity.
Here's one paper: http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/1989/JB094iB12p17371.shtml
What's the "natural level"?
CO2 levels have been an order of magnitude higher before, albeit a few millions years ago. Most plants evolved at levels several times higher than today.
Our biosphere is currently CO2 starved. That's bad.
Yeah, you should be somewhat wary of trusting Wikipedia on AGW - if you think there's heated debate on the issue at Slashdot that's nothing compared to the editor wars there.
Anyway, on CO2 Science you'll find enough "local" MWP/LIA papers for a nice global integration.
http://www.co2science.org/data/mwp/mwpp.php
Well, I haven't read them directly but I followed the news.
Then I suggest you do. You will change your mind afterwards, I promise.
Have a great New Year! :)
I assume you haven't read the Climategate contents then, it's impossible for anyone who claims to follow the scientific method to do so and then claim there's no sign of malfeasance. Again, do not trust the reporting - study it yourself. I have.
As for Arrhenius, a fellow Swede, is this were I reply that he wasn't not a "climate scientis"? ;) He did calculations on greenhouse gasses, but that's not the same thing as what I wrote with regards to models and the need for CO2 as forcing agent.
(Arrhenius, btw, thought increased levels of CO2 would be benificial. I'm quite sure they are, as indicated by the greening of the biosphere)
If you're a scientist there should be no need for me to explain why the Earth's atmosphere and a laboratory are different. Convection, saturation and huge oceans are only the beginning of such an explanation and is best left to any sensible reader.
Finally, with regards to ENSO. What can heat oceans? Not the atmosphere, the heat budget goes in the other direction. The only thing that can heat the oceans would be the sun through short wave radiation, and while we don't see huge changes in the visible spectre (TSI - sometimes confused as being the total!) when moderated through clouds we easily get changes in radiation absorbed by the oceans large enough to cause ENSO like variations.
It looks to me like you're just trying desperately to state that only CO2 can be responsible for most of the current warming.
Why? :) Not trying to falsify and finding other explanations is not science.
Climategate (yes, that Climategate. Don't trust the reporting of it on Realclimate - read the emails yourself, look through the documents and data) proved beyond reasonable doubt that some climate researchers, interestingly the same as behind Realclimate, are absolutely not:
willing to publish results that overturn scientific consensus, even if data are preliminary
That's one of the main reasons why I don't ever trust Realclimate on anything that has to do with science. Gavin especially.
Now I do not in any way believe there is a conspiracy or coverup. We're seeing the normal slow process of shifts in ideas back and forth, it simply takes time for new thoughts to blend through.
The CO2 hypothesis only gained acceptance when we realized that the climate models we had a few decades ago couldn't model the observed temperatures if we didn't add a forcing agent.
One of my reasons for linking to Tisdale's work (not peer reviewed, granted, let's see if any one of the offers for co-publishing he got comes through) was that he shows that maybe the models didn't need CO2 as a forcing agent at all, maybe it was just us not understanding the ocean's reaction to ENSO events.
I'm also somewhat tired of the whole "peer reviewed" discussion. Yes it's a way to get a somewhat reasonable input filter on what you read, but it doesn't in any way mean that things that aren't peer reviewed cannot be correct. You just need to do the filtering yourself, and Tisdale's reasoning and data look valid so far to me.
Yeah and that 90 has recently been lowered as well, we're down to a guesstimated 64: http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml
This is getting nowhere - but I'll leave you with an observation. You're doing advocacy (as are the people behind Realclimate) - I'm doing science. Observations trump models - always. If models cannot be verified by observation they aren't scientific.
You'll realize this in a few years ;)
(PS: Plate tectonics was discredited by leading scientists in the field. That's why real science has nothing to do with consensus, ever)
Now please rewrite the above post, substituting "The Guardian", "New York Times" etc for Wikileaks and see that it still holds true.
Thus your earlier posts contain falsehoods (is that a word you'd like better than lies? Both are correct).
Again: Why do you insist on misrepresenting the truth, and what do you think you'll gain from it?
So, again, what do you believe you will accomplish by posting lies?
The complete set of cables is still in the hands of other media organizations as well, thus Assange is not doing the things you claim. Wikileaks is a place where someone can go if they want to leak stuff, and they will then make sure it becomes available.
Several news organizations have access to all cables, and decide themselves what to release and when. That's why your post was false.
Your second post makes completely different claims. Again, I'm curious as to what you believe that will accomplish.
In reality, once we found that out we put a stop to it. Since the US apparently lied to us, we had to find it out ourselves:
Confirmation that the planes were transporting prisoners came in April 2006 after a daring “surveillance operation” was ordered by Swedish security service Säpo and carried out without the knowledge of the Americans.
On Säpo’s orders, Swedish military intelligence agents dressed up as airport service personnel and boarded the plane. The agents reported back that the plane was carrying prisoners.
[---]
no more secret American prisoner transports have landed in Sweden since 2006
http://www.thelocal.se/30626/20101205/
(This story verified by Wikileaks cable releases)
In Swedish by the Pirate Party European Parliament representative: http://christianengstrom.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/foliehatten-av-for-sveriges-marionettregering/
Short summary in English by the Pirate Party: http://www.piratpartiet.se/cables-us-driving-swedish-data-retention
I'm curious. Why do you post lies? What would be your motivation?
They've released it all to the participating old media magazines, and apparently other have access as well*. The logic, which you don't buy, is also based on earlier observations and thus can be said to be based in fact. It also seems those who have access to all of them believe the reasoning to be sound since no one has dumped them all yet.
*) http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704278404576038170585686718.html
No. Wikileaks has realised since earlier big leaks that releasing everything at once causes information overflow and the individual atrocities don't get enough attention.
Releasing the cables over a prolonged period of time allows press coverage, discussion and digestion.
In Sweden we're currently somewhat disturbed by the Wikileaks-revealed fact that several laws having been imposed on us during the last few years were dictated by the US, with a threat of sanctions if we didn't implement them even though it was known the populace weren't in favor.
That's info from one single cable.
Short:
The NASA study was a reply to your comment about records in highs outnumbering lows. You seem to be discussing something else now. As far as I recall Watts has a few things to say about Menne though.
Climate models (emphasis on plural!) produce results better than random guessing. Single climate models (singular) don't. This is where you say "aha!" and remember the old thought experiment in statistics with regards to coin flipping. That's, again, why in a long bet I would want my CO2-hugging opponent to select _one_ model from today's crop and stick with it. I'd do the same, of course.
Realclimate censor things they don't like, and they themselves are the judges of what's not to like. That's advocacy, not science :) Please remember I'm a strict Popperian. Feel free to publish your hypothesis and it will be debunked if it's not good.
Changing the weighting of a model to fit the facts, after the fact, is not "new understanding".
(PS: I find it somewhat humorous that the way Foster et al debunks McLean et al is similar to how the Mann hockeystick has been thoroughly destroyed. There's definitely a lack of professional statisticians verifying climate papers)
1) No, UHI is not well compensated for. I linked to that NASA study for that very reason - what it found was that the effect is much larger than anyone had thought before (thus invalidating the papers you list).
Did you know that flags used for the station data in model runs aren't time dependent? I.e, if a station happens to be considered urban from 1996 onwards that is then considered to be true for all earlier observations as well, when it in reality was rural. This causes old temperatures to be artificially lowered over time.
2) On warm oceanic cycles you only need to follow the Tisdale link I gave you for more SST information. I'm somewhat confused, it's a well known fact that there are cycles where the oceans give up and/or absorb less or more heat to the atmosphere.
3) If climate models don't make predictions then they cannot be used for policy making. Since they are, they thus make predictions. All predictions made so far have been falsified (yes, that includes Hansen's - please never ever link to realclimate. That's an advocacy site not interested in real science - they admit to censor things that don't fit their agenda). If you make enough predictions some of them are bound to be within the error bars of observed data though - but that doesn't mean anything in itself.
4) There can be any number of reasons for a cooler stratosphere, lack of falsification is not the same as verification.
I would agree with you with regards to rerunning models with actual forcings as they happen - if no weighting is changed. As far as I know, that's not true, and thus the models aren't verified by observations but constantly changed to fit the facts, after the fact. That's not science.
disclaimer: I work for Sony Ericsson ;)
Sorry to hear that! If there were conditions communicated to you and then not fulfilled (either by your carrier or from us) then you should absolutely let them/us know. Tethering isn't officially supported in Android 2.1 though, and when it comes to "rooting" (which would be able to get you tethering on that version and earlier) we need to fulfill our obligations to all our customers which include the carriers as well.
Open Source has a huge market share - where it counts: Mobile Internet Devices (some still call them smartphones).
With regards to statistics that could be either UHI or the fact that we've for the last 2-3 decades been in a warm oceanic cycle (or both, of course). http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/heat-island-sprawl.html
I actually tried to make a long bet with someone who, like you, believe CO2 controls our climate a week ago. I would be making it very public, and I would like "the other side" to be a publically recognizable entity, but my suggestion was for $1500.
Short version: We'd both select _one_ climate model, he one from the CO2-crowd (note - a single one) and I one based on the solar->magnetic->clouds->oceans->atmosphere hypothesis, and in ten years we would see which model had tracked the observations most closely.
(I'd use Bob Tisdale's excellent work on integrating ENSO effects for one part - see http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2010/11/multidecadal-changes-in-sea-surface_17.html )
Unfortunately it seems he wasn't willing. I'm assuming that's because he knows that, so far, no CO2-based climate model has been successful at predicting anything when verified against observations ;)
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/section?content=a928051726&fulltext=713240928
(Yes, I'm of the Popperian school of science. Feel free to launch hypothesises but if they have no predictive powers they're falsified)
You know Sweden employs actual professionals to judge guilt, right?
Not at the first instance we don't. There we put a few politicians to make sure that whatever we get is as politically clouded as anything can be.