Well, okay, you *have* done your research. Now what *is* the total greenhouse effect of human-emmited CO2?
There isn't an exact figure that everyone agrees upon, but total anthropogenic influences have been estimated to be responsible for about 0.6-0.7 C of warming (see Figure SPM.4 in the IPCC report). However, that combines human warming (CO2, greenhouse gases) and cooling (aerosols); the CO2 warming is probably larger than that. On the other hand, the CO2 warming figure includes feedbacks (such as increased greenhouse effect from water vapor which the CO2 warming causes to evaporate). The greenhouse warming of CO2 alone is, IIRC, more like 0.3 or 0.4 C.
I may not have provided very good facts to prove that man-made warming isn't substantial, but that isn't the point at all. The point is that so far most of what we hear is assumptions on the *effect* of figures like those you stated.
Well, why don't you go read some actual research papers? Climatology is a quantitative science, you know.
I'd also like a bit of clarification on exactly why solar activity is not an important factor.
It's not... unimportant. It contributed to warming in the early 20th century. But it was overwhelmed by human warming later in the century.
I was kind of under the impression that the sun provided a decent amount of our heat.
It provides all of the external energy input, but what matters is what is causing the change in temperature. The change in solar output is too small to explain that for the late 20th century.
Note that it isn't just Mars warming up... I'd expect variations in solar output to have a proportional effect on our temperature.
The behavior of the Sun doesn't explain warming here or on Mars; in fact, solar output decreased somewhat during some of the greatest warming here as well as during warming on Mars.
Regardless of it all, deforestation is a bigger threat in my opinion than SUVs.
That's probably true, but note that deforestation affects the climate too.
And (assumption) tackling that could do a bit more good on the CO2 front than a global tax on carbon while at the same time helping with problems like floods, habitat destruction, etc.
Tackling that is good, but it may well not be enough. Climate change is real.
You're talking about an economist who is using an unstable predictive model to create his own unstable predictive model. Once again, the old "we don't know everything, therefore we don't know anything" argument.
By pretending it's anything more that a very educated guess-from-the-ass, you display your preconceived notions. By arbitrarily dismissing the best conclusions of the most expert economists who have studied the issue, you display yours.
It's rather obvious that a measurement station located in a small area that will get consistently higher temperatures than the surrounding environment is going to be inaccurate.
Like I said, the SurfaceStation people have not demonstrated that the stations ARE getting consistently higher temperatures than the surrounding environment. What kind of influence does an air conditioner 10 feet away have on a Stevenson-screened station? It's not at all obvious that it will have any effect at all.
There is no reason to not attempt to get away from artificial heat sources as much as possible, and to defend questionable measurement techniques such as this smacks of ideological motivations.
I didn't defend questionable measurement techniques, I said that the SurfaceStation people haven't demonstrated any errors in the temperature record.
The CORRECT way to go about this is not to sling mud about how we have to toss the entire temperature record, it's to actually measure the extent to which stations have problems, which is part of what is being done with the new Climate Reference Network.
You don't use data you know to be bad, or that there is a strong possibility of being bad.
As I said, there is no data KNOWN to be bad. There is only data alleged to possibly be bad.
Yes, Siting problems are worse in urban areas, which makes one wonder why they would be sited in urban areas at all.
Data is data, and you can't just ignore urban areas: a non-negligible fraction of the planet's surface is urbanized. Tossing out all urban stations altogether doesn't change the overall trend, although the error bars go up.
"About 80% of the temperature stations that have been visited and photographed have serious quality problems."
You're citing Kristen "Ponder The Maunder" Byrnes? Give me a break. Certainly your ClimateAudit link doesn't back it up, and such as statement doesn't appear on SurfaceStations either. If you want to provide something from Watts himself, go ahead. Be sure to define what a "serious quality problem" is, and its quantifiable relation to temperature bias.
Then why were the results from the cited stations INCLUDED in the data used?
Why shouldn't they be? There's nothing known to be wrong with their data. If the CRN is able to quantify errors in the data, they will be adjusted or discarded.
And why the need for the correction this whole/. article is about?
The correction has nothing to do with the quality of surface station siting nor with the quality of the adjustment algorithm; it was simply a mistake in which data set was being used.
The point is, IF there are any statistical procedures in place, they aren't being used properly or AT ALL.
You've made no such point. The procedures are used and they work; they can't give the right answer, however, when you give them the wrong data set.
Satellites: Citation Needed
You can dig in chapter 3 of the IPCC report for the formal references, but the Wikipedia graph is instructive (here).
Bore Hole measurements: Due to lack of citation I can only assume that you are speaking about the Taylor Dome borehole data cited in the NAS panel report of 2006.
What, do you Google everything I say on Climate Audit for your talking points?
The Taylor Dome is one specific borehole in Antarctica. There are lots of boreholes located all over the world, and numerous borehole studies, found in chapter 6 of the IPCC report.
Temperature reconstructions from glacier melt rates and species redistribution patterns are largely considered tangential to overall Global Warming theory by all but the most religious of GW zealots
This is, of course, nonsense. They're not as good as the surface or satellite
Personally, if I was working with this data with my climate models and 'improving' the models with it, I would be upset. Anything I had written would come into question. That may be true of those doing regional U.S. predictions, but it has little material influence on global climate models in general.
People should be tar and feathering Hansen. Give me a break. GISS made an honest mistake, which was fixed. Hansen didn't murder anyone.
For something that has serious potential consequences (1% in EITHER direction would have BROAD consequences)
No, it wouldn't. The error bars on the temperature data are bigger than that already, and the error bars on predicted temperatures are like +/- 30% or more, and that's assuming you know the emissions scenario. A 1% change wouldn't influence any conclusion already made.
It only sucks for those who can not find opportunity in the change. Just think of all the A/C systems that will be sold in the next 100 years, assuming things get as bad as they want you to think. Just think of all the third world citizens who can't afford A/C (and live in the tropics). Adaptation is for the rich.
Or how about the companies that will make billions building flood control systems for coastal cities? This could be a boon to the economy! Developing more energy efficient technologies could be a boon for the economy, too. Why don't we do that instead?
As other parts of the discussion have pointed out, corals will survive, they have in the past during major temprature changes. The coral polyps themselves will survive, but the reefs very well may not.
Yes, some species of animals and plants will die off, but others will adapt and fill the niche that is vacated/created due to changes in temprature. Yeah, but you still may get massive biodiversity loss, even if a few species take over all the old niches. It's not helped by the massive biodiversity loss underway by other human activities.
Those that think they can place the planet in stasis We can't place the planet in stasis. We can, however, avoid changes that are beneficial neither to us or to the net biodiversity of the planet as a whole.
That there was warming in the '20s, when human greenhouse gas inputs were far less of a factor. See my point in the grandparent post regarding "natural" warming.
Yes, we know that natural warming can exist, and in fact, climate models predict the natural warming in the early 20th century. That doesn't change the evidence that the late 20th and 21st century warming cannot be adequately explained by natural effects.
It's relevant to the extent that recent record US temperatures have been tied to "Global Warming" in the press
In other words, it's irrelevant to the science.
It also calls into question the published global temperature means - surely the best record keeping and science occurred at least in first world countries.
That's a specious argument. Other countries didn't partition the data into pre and post 2000 and even if they did, it would be beyond credibility that they made exactly the same mistake. If you want to argue that they are more likely to have made some other mistake, you are free to do so, but the mistake that was actually made says nothing one way or another about the credibility of other data sets.
There's also the issue of weather stations being affected by urban heat islands over time.
Which has already been studied and, when necessary, corrected.
Really? And how do we "know" this exactly? Perhaps you'd care to share with us the percentage of worldwide yearly C02, H2O vapor, and methane emissions for which humans are responsible?
You're free to start with the IPCC report and dig into the references. We know, for instance, that almost all of the ~100 ppm CO2 increase over the last 150 years is due to us, by (a) estimates of human industrial activity, (b) measurements of natural sources, and (c) isotopic fingerprinting of atmospheric CO2.
I'm also sure you can guarantee that there've been no unaccounted for inputs or effects in the system, that aren't currently modeled correctly...
It was widely reported this week that a new, major current had been discovered off Madagascar that's responsible for major climate effects. How can current models be accurate when not taking this current into account?
There's accurate, and then there's accurate. All models are wrong. Always. The real question is, are they accurate enough for the purposes to which they are put? Modelers have given evidence that they are, based on their correspondence with observed data. If you want to argue that the models are too flawed to be used in climate prediction, you may do so, but you'll have to do better than vaguely insisting that they aren't perfect and are therefore worthless.
In point of fact, models PREDICTED the current you mention, and they are only now observing it in the real ocean, AFTER it was discovered in model simulations! The paper states, "This confirms recent model descriptions of a Southern Hemisphere 'supergyre', a nested system of subtropical gyres". Does that tell you something about the utility of climate models in making useful predictions?
In some models, reduced rainforest area is associated with reduced greenhouse gas sinking. Yet real world observation indicates that rainforests are net greenhouse gas producers, due to methane from decomposition (methane is a 40 times stronger greenhouse gas than CO2).
The terrestrial vegetation cycle is not well modeled, and uncertainty in vegetative representation leads to uncertainty in model prediction. However, the uncertainty isn't large enough to change the basic prediction of continued warming.
Sure...26 times further would be one year. Now tell me the story about 93 years...
As I said, weather prediction is entirely different from climate prediction. It is impossible to predict the weather 20 years in advance, but it is p
Yet in 1934, some places were much hotter, while some places were colder than 1998. But the average was colder, which is the point. It's GLOBAL warming, after all.
So you're saying in 1998, it was less hot than 1934 on average, and the temperature was more homogeneous. No, he's saying that 1998 was hotter than 1934 on average.
3D general circulation model EdGCM (based on NASA GISS Model II, state of the art in 1983 and what James Hansen himself used in his famous 1988 testimony to Congress).
For more modern and advanced models... they're not so easy for laymen to run themselves, but...
There are a variety of Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs) which are not fully 3D models but represent a lot of physics and don't require a supercomputer. One such is UVic; there are many more (here).
You can even get full blown state of the art GCMs which run on supercomputers, like NASA GISS Model E or NCAR CCSM, but expect to run them for most of a year to get any kind of result...
I haven't actually SEEN any attempt to falsify. How many climatological journal articles have you read? Yeah, I thought so. There is a vast literature on "detection & attribution studies": how much can be attributed to anthropogenic CO2, aerosols, etc.; how much to solar irradiance changes, volcanism, etc.; how much to ENSO variability, and so on.
This would require that the alternate process be investigated in a rigorous manner (so not cosmic rays then) Cosmic rays have been investigated, and arguments for and against published (see Svensmark, Lockwood & Frolich, etc.)
or why the known science (CO2 as a GHG) isn't having any or much effect. CO2 as a GHG is having pretty much the effect predicted by climate models, as far as all data indicates.
The problem doesn't make any difference to the results because we're all just assuming that the error was only in the US. We don't know that. The error was due to an incorrect merge of pre-2000 and post-2000 data sets. Other countries do their own data analyses and don't even partition the sets into pre- and post-2000. It is beyond credibility to believe that this error has anything to do with non-U.S. data.
Actually, that site refers to the RealClimate essay which concludes, "Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external [e.g., solar] forcing." Since then, at least one study has been published that shows that Martian dust storm activity is consistent with the trend (unlike any external causes which is what needs to be invoked to establish a relationship to Earth climate).
The U.S. more than 2% of the land surface area, but is equal to about 2% of the total surface area. The number of stations in the U.S. is more than 2% of the total number of stations, but that is irrelevant as far as the influence of U.S. temperatures on the global average is concerned. Furthermore, the correction being discussed here has very little to do with practices that are in place in other countries.
So far a lot have been found to be faulty. No data has been found faulty. A small fraction of stations, mostly in urban areas which are already renormed against rural areas, have been found to have siting problems of unknown effect.
Way to stack the deck, Controll the data control the science What the hell? Do you know what "control data" is? You can't use Mars as a "control Earth" when its climatology is completely different; it has no oceans and virtually no atmosphere.
Right so a planet near earth and earth both have rising temperatures. They have the same sun, the same solar winds and about the same exposure to gamma burst... Completely irrelevant.. Solar effects are demonstrably not reponsible for the warming on either the Earth or Mars, and even if they were, Mars's climate would still be irrelevant as the planet's climate is so different.
A professional statistician (which is what McIntyre is) might not be able to check the underlying science but he might be better than the original climate scientist in applying cutting edge statistical analysis because that's *his* expertise. McIntyre is not a professional statistician. He's a former mining executive with education in pure mathematics, politics, and economics.
Sorry but according to the published standards, you are simply not supposed to have burn barrels next to your temp station. You are simply not supposed to put one of these things in the middle of pavement. That's true, but as I said, it doesn't actually prove a problem with the station's temperature readings.
If those are not actual problems, you should take out the language stating that such things are problems from your site standards. If they are problems, you should take out the stations that have those problems from your "high quality" list of sites. They are siting problems, which means that they potentially could have errors in the temperature record. All I'm saying is that's a far cry from demonstrating any actual temperature errors. I'm sure specified siting requirements are far more conservative than is necessary, so a siting error doesn't really prove anything one way or another. To do that, you have to actually put a well-sited station nearby and cross-check. That's what the Climate Reference Network is doing.
Inconsistently applying data quality standards means your data is quite likely crap. You sound like a fundamentalist. "If there's a potential error of unknown magnitude somewhere, then the whole thing is crap". That is very unlikely to be the case, as noted here.
Could a FOIA request force this? It probably could, and McIntyre has been muttering about invoking one.
For, scientists working outside the government, I think providing the algorithm and data are sufficient Maybe, although it's less clear when they receive government funding. As far as legal requirments go, Mann was not forced to hand over his source code, just his data.
...who said with 95% certainty that 1998 was the hottest year EVAH in the US.
No, he said that there was a 95% certainty that 1998 was the hottest year in the last 1000, in the world.
It's called hubris. They have too much of it.
While that may be hubristic (though not as much so as your misquote), limit your statements to Mann and don't paint the entire climate science community with a broad brush on the basis of what Mann said.
While there is no doubt that the Earth has had a warming trend over the past 100,000 years, it's also true that the Earth goes through the same exact cycle approximately every 100,000 years: it also conveniently explains the ice ages. It's also true that the current warming has nothing to do with that cycle.
The truth is that humans could no more stop the warming/cooling trends of the Earth anymore than we can cause them. We can cause some of them, as well as stop them. The ice age trends are not caused by us, but that has nothing to do with the current trend. For that matter, we could actually stop the ice age cycle, at least for a while; I read a study that suggested if we burned all known fossil fuel reserves we might skip the next two ice age cycles. (We probably couldn't do that though, because a lot of the reserves are impractical to extract.)
In one hundred years, people will be holding up apocalyptic signs because of the impending ice age Even if there were no global warming, that wouldn't happen; ice ages don't happen that fast.
Now go be productive and find the real reason for the trend/cycle: orbital rotation/changes, cyclical changes in the Sun, etc. The vast majority of scientific evidenc indicates that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for most of the warming that occurred in the 20th century, your denial notwithstanding.
is staked on perpetrating the "Global Warming" hoax. Oh give me a break. If you want to point out an error in his published research, go right ahead and try. Otherwise, drop with the insinuations and innuendo.
We were worried about the melting Greenland glacier, and dissapearing Arctic ice in the 1920's, too. So? It was warming in the 1920s too, just not as much or as fast as now.
Then when somebody actually does go out and check, we find a significant fraction of them are just awful, hopelessly compromised by local heat island effects. This has not been established, since the SurfaceStation folks have never tried to demonstrate that there are errors in the recorded temperatures, only that there are potential siting problems.
The coral organisms will survive ocean acificiation, but the reefs may not, and it takes a long, long time to build those back again. Reefs have built back before, but we may not see it happen.
When faced with this information, NOAA ignores it, because they intend on that offset being misleading. They're not ignoring it, they're just being smart about it.
Instead of running around screaming "OMG an air conditioner!!one!!", they're putting a new temperature network with more carefully controlled measurement and siting into place. Some of the new stations will be placed near old stations to quantify what errors, if any, exist in the old data; the old data can then be adjusted. In the meantime, they have statistical procedures in place to detect and correct (when possible) or discard (when not possible) problematic station data, such as jump discontinuity adjustment and renorming urban stations against nearby rural stations. In addition, even the questionably sited stations have Stevenson screens to ameliorate the influence of nearby heat sources.
The evidence is clear that Global Warming is not man-made, Please, present this "evidence". It contradicts the massive amounts of evidence accumulated over the last 30+ years.
it's a natural, cyclical process which occurs with the strengthening of the Sun There are no known "cycles" which are due right now and produce warming. Natural non-cyclical sources are also inadequate to explain the post-1970 warming trend. The Sun certainly isn't, as solar intensity weakened during that period (e.g. here). Indeed, the temperature effect of solar intensity has been downgraded over the last few years.
Slashdot Mirror
Right now, models predict that we would be cooling slightly, post 1950, without human influence. See Figure SPM.4 here.
Well, okay, you *have* done your research. Now what *is* the total greenhouse effect of human-emmited CO2?
... unimportant. It contributed to warming in the early 20th century. But it was overwhelmed by human warming later in the century.
There isn't an exact figure that everyone agrees upon, but total anthropogenic influences have been estimated to be responsible for about 0.6-0.7 C of warming (see Figure SPM.4 in the IPCC report). However, that combines human warming (CO2, greenhouse gases) and cooling (aerosols); the CO2 warming is probably larger than that. On the other hand, the CO2 warming figure includes feedbacks (such as increased greenhouse effect from water vapor which the CO2 warming causes to evaporate). The greenhouse warming of CO2 alone is, IIRC, more like 0.3 or 0.4 C.
I may not have provided very good facts to prove that man-made warming isn't substantial, but that isn't the point at all. The point is that so far most of what we hear is assumptions on the *effect* of figures like those you stated.
Well, why don't you go read some actual research papers? Climatology is a quantitative science, you know.
I'd also like a bit of clarification on exactly why solar activity is not an important factor.
It's not
I was kind of under the impression that the sun provided a decent amount of our heat.
It provides all of the external energy input, but what matters is what is causing the change in temperature. The change in solar output is too small to explain that for the late 20th century.
Note that it isn't just Mars warming up... I'd expect variations in solar output to have a proportional effect on our temperature.
The behavior of the Sun doesn't explain warming here or on Mars; in fact, solar output decreased somewhat during some of the greatest warming here as well as during warming on Mars.
Regardless of it all, deforestation is a bigger threat in my opinion than SUVs.
That's probably true, but note that deforestation affects the climate too.
And (assumption) tackling that could do a bit more good on the CO2 front than a global tax on carbon while at the same time helping with problems like floods, habitat destruction, etc.
Tackling that is good, but it may well not be enough. Climate change is real.
It's rather obvious that a measurement station located in a small area that will get consistently higher temperatures than the surrounding environment is going to be inaccurate.
Like I said, the SurfaceStation people have not demonstrated that the stations ARE getting consistently higher temperatures than the surrounding environment. What kind of influence does an air conditioner 10 feet away have on a Stevenson-screened station? It's not at all obvious that it will have any effect at all.
There is no reason to not attempt to get away from artificial heat sources as much as possible, and to defend questionable measurement techniques such as this smacks of ideological motivations.
I didn't defend questionable measurement techniques, I said that the SurfaceStation people haven't demonstrated any errors in the temperature record.
The CORRECT way to go about this is not to sling mud about how we have to toss the entire temperature record, it's to actually measure the extent to which stations have problems, which is part of what is being done with the new Climate Reference Network.
You don't use data you know to be bad, or that there is a strong possibility of being bad.
As I said, there is no data KNOWN to be bad. There is only data alleged to possibly be bad.
Yes, Siting problems are worse in urban areas, which makes one wonder why they would be sited in urban areas at all.
Data is data, and you can't just ignore urban areas: a non-negligible fraction of the planet's surface is urbanized. Tossing out all urban stations altogether doesn't change the overall trend, although the error bars go up.
"About 80% of the temperature stations that have been visited and photographed have serious quality problems."
You're citing Kristen "Ponder The Maunder" Byrnes? Give me a break. Certainly your ClimateAudit link doesn't back it up, and such as statement doesn't appear on SurfaceStations either. If you want to provide something from Watts himself, go ahead. Be sure to define what a "serious quality problem" is, and its quantifiable relation to temperature bias.
Then why were the results from the cited stations INCLUDED in the data used?
Why shouldn't they be? There's nothing known to be wrong with their data. If the CRN is able to quantify errors in the data, they will be adjusted or discarded.
And why the need for the correction this whole /. article is about?
The correction has nothing to do with the quality of surface station siting nor with the quality of the adjustment algorithm; it was simply a mistake in which data set was being used.
The point is, IF there are any statistical procedures in place, they aren't being used properly or AT ALL.
You've made no such point. The procedures are used and they work; they can't give the right answer, however, when you give them the wrong data set.
Satellites: Citation Needed
You can dig in chapter 3 of the IPCC report for the formal references, but the Wikipedia graph is instructive (here).
Bore Hole measurements: Due to lack of citation I can only assume that you are speaking about the Taylor Dome borehole data cited in the NAS panel report of 2006.
What, do you Google everything I say on Climate Audit for your talking points?
The Taylor Dome is one specific borehole in Antarctica. There are lots of boreholes located all over the world, and numerous borehole studies, found in chapter 6 of the IPCC report.
Temperature reconstructions from glacier melt rates and species redistribution patterns are largely considered tangential to overall Global Warming theory by all but the most religious of GW zealots
This is, of course, nonsense. They're not as good as the surface or satellite
For something that has serious potential consequences (1% in EITHER direction would have BROAD consequences)
No, it wouldn't. The error bars on the temperature data are bigger than that already, and the error bars on predicted temperatures are like +/- 30% or more, and that's assuming you know the emissions scenario. A 1% change wouldn't influence any conclusion already made.
That there was warming in the '20s, when human greenhouse gas inputs were far less of a factor. See my point in the grandparent post regarding "natural" warming.
Yes, we know that natural warming can exist, and in fact, climate models predict the natural warming in the early 20th century. That doesn't change the evidence that the late 20th and 21st century warming cannot be adequately explained by natural effects.
It's relevant to the extent that recent record US temperatures have been tied to "Global Warming" in the press
In other words, it's irrelevant to the science.
It also calls into question the published global temperature means - surely the best record keeping and science occurred at least in first world countries.
That's a specious argument. Other countries didn't partition the data into pre and post 2000 and even if they did, it would be beyond credibility that they made exactly the same mistake. If you want to argue that they are more likely to have made some other mistake, you are free to do so, but the mistake that was actually made says nothing one way or another about the credibility of other data sets.
There's also the issue of weather stations being affected by urban heat islands over time.
Which has already been studied and, when necessary, corrected.
Really? And how do we "know" this exactly? Perhaps you'd care to share with us the percentage of worldwide yearly C02, H2O vapor, and methane emissions for which humans are responsible?
You're free to start with the IPCC report and dig into the references. We know, for instance, that almost all of the ~100 ppm CO2 increase over the last 150 years is due to us, by (a) estimates of human industrial activity, (b) measurements of natural sources, and (c) isotopic fingerprinting of atmospheric CO2.
I'm also sure you can guarantee that there've been no unaccounted for inputs or effects in the system, that aren't currently modeled correctly...
Ah, FUD. "We don't know everything, therefore we don't know anything."
It was widely reported this week that a new, major current had been discovered off Madagascar that's responsible for major climate effects. How can current models be accurate when not taking this current into account?
There's accurate, and then there's accurate. All models are wrong. Always. The real question is, are they accurate enough for the purposes to which they are put? Modelers have given evidence that they are, based on their correspondence with observed data. If you want to argue that the models are too flawed to be used in climate prediction, you may do so, but you'll have to do better than vaguely insisting that they aren't perfect and are therefore worthless.
In point of fact, models PREDICTED the current you mention, and they are only now observing it in the real ocean, AFTER it was discovered in model simulations! The paper states, "This confirms recent model descriptions of a Southern Hemisphere 'supergyre', a nested system of subtropical gyres". Does that tell you something about the utility of climate models in making useful predictions?
In some models, reduced rainforest area is associated with reduced greenhouse gas sinking. Yet real world observation indicates that rainforests are net greenhouse gas producers, due to methane from decomposition (methane is a 40 times stronger greenhouse gas than CO2).
The terrestrial vegetation cycle is not well modeled, and uncertainty in vegetative representation leads to uncertainty in model prediction. However, the uncertainty isn't large enough to change the basic prediction of continued warming.
Sure...26 times further would be one year. Now tell me the story about 93 years...
As I said, weather prediction is entirely different from climate prediction. It is impossible to predict the weather 20 years in advance, but it is p
Repost of my AC post:
... they're not so easy for laymen to run themselves, but ...
...
Lots of data at NCDC.
Simple interactive Java climate model JCM5.
3D general circulation model EdGCM (based on NASA GISS Model II, state of the art in 1983 and what James Hansen himself used in his famous 1988 testimony to Congress).
For more modern and advanced models
There are a variety of Earth System Models of Intermediate Complexity (EMICs) which are not fully 3D models but represent a lot of physics and don't require a supercomputer. One such is UVic; there are many more (here).
You can even get full blown state of the art GCMs which run on supercomputers, like NASA GISS Model E or NCAR CCSM, but expect to run them for most of a year to get any kind of result
Actually, that site refers to the RealClimate essay which concludes, "Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external [e.g., solar] forcing." Since then, at least one study has been published that shows that Martian dust storm activity is consistent with the trend (unlike any external causes which is what needs to be invoked to establish a relationship to Earth climate).
The U.S. more than 2% of the land surface area, but is equal to about 2% of the total surface area. The number of stations in the U.S. is more than 2% of the total number of stations, but that is irrelevant as far as the influence of U.S. temperatures on the global average is concerned. Furthermore, the correction being discussed here has very little to do with practices that are in place in other countries.
...who said with 95% certainty that 1998 was the hottest year EVAH in the US.
No, he said that there was a 95% certainty that 1998 was the hottest year in the last 1000, in the world.
It's called hubris. They have too much of it.
While that may be hubristic (though not as much so as your misquote), limit your statements to Mann and don't paint the entire climate science community with a broad brush on the basis of what Mann said.
The coral organisms will survive ocean acificiation, but the reefs may not, and it takes a long, long time to build those back again. Reefs have built back before, but we may not see it happen.
Instead of running around screaming "OMG an air conditioner!!one!!", they're putting a new temperature network with more carefully controlled measurement and siting into place. Some of the new stations will be placed near old stations to quantify what errors, if any, exist in the old data; the old data can then be adjusted. In the meantime, they have statistical procedures in place to detect and correct (when possible) or discard (when not possible) problematic station data, such as jump discontinuity adjustment and renorming urban stations against nearby rural stations. In addition, even the questionably sited stations have Stevenson screens to ameliorate the influence of nearby heat sources. The evidence is clear that Global Warming is not man-made, Please, present this "evidence". It contradicts the massive amounts of evidence accumulated over the last 30+ years. it's a natural, cyclical process which occurs with the strengthening of the Sun There are no known "cycles" which are due right now and produce warming. Natural non-cyclical sources are also inadequate to explain the post-1970 warming trend. The Sun certainly isn't, as solar intensity weakened during that period (e.g. here). Indeed, the temperature effect of solar intensity has been downgraded over the last few years.