Been there, done that. The scientists have already done that analysis and determined what stations they would use. Maybe you could argue with the criteria they used to determine what stations to use but to just say they "had no siting issues or problems" without reference to the criteria the scientists used to exclude them is bogus.
Just eyeballing the graph it doesn't look like the differences after 1950 are significant enough to change any fundamental conclusions, just some details that scientists pay attention to.
If you look at the graph you'll notice that there is essentially no difference between the two lines after 1950. So it doesn't affect anything much after 1950.
But suddenly it's about climate change therefor you're now all more qualified experts than those with the data. Why is that? What is it about climate change that suddenly everyone and their dog can tell you how wrong the scientists are?
It's all about economics and ideology. Nothing can stand in the way of the "Free Market". (btw TANSTAAFM). They're afraid it's going to hurt their pocketbooks and don't realize how much worse they'll be hurting if we don't do something about it. They reject the science because of their ideology and accuse the scientists of being ideologues instead. Isn't that called projection? I'm doing it so the other guys must be to?
I was going to mod you up but instead here's a comparison of the difference between the IEA stations and the CRU stations. I don't read russian so I don't know which is which but I suspect the blue line is IEA and the red CRU. It shows they've been nearly in lockstep since 1950 and well synchronized since at least 1900.
Gavin Smith of the GISS commented "... the issue is very likely to be connected to instrument changes/metadata changes that the IEA analysis doesn't look at at all."
But Russia is only a part of the world and even if the IEA were right it doesn't affect anything else enough to change the fundamental conclusions about global warming.
What gives you the idea that increasing warmth would make the Earth a uniformly warm paradise? That statement has no basis in reality.
There would still be the fact the the polar regions receive much less sunlight than the equatorial region that would keep that from being true. It would take truly violent weather to continuously transfer enough heat to make and keep the poles as warm as the equator. The configuration of the continents and oceans would have an effect as well. Uniform warmth wouldn't prevent rain shadows behind mountain ranges from causing a desert for example.
If you had studied atmospheric science even a little you would know that your water vapor statement is ridiculous. The upper atmosphere is very dry because it's very cold. Cold air can't hold as much water vapor as warm air. About 99.99% of the water vapor in the atmosphere is in the troposphere (that's the atmosphere up to around 30,000 feet). That has been scientifically measured and is an indisputable fact and has always been true just because of the physics involved. The water that caused sea level to rise came from the melting of the continental ice sheets at the end of the last glacial period. When 10,000 feet of ice sitting on land melts it's going to cause sea levels to rise.
CO2 levels in the atmosphere were much higher in the past than they are now so yes, the fossil fuel we are digging up came from carbon in the atmosphere. Your belief that whole Earth was a warm paradise then is just a fantasy. CO2 in the atmosphere is now higher than it's been in at least 15 million years and all of the life now is adapted to the current level of CO2 and the climate it produces.
And how many other dips in temperature do you see in the graph? What "in any meaningful way" means that if the cooling trend is 15 years or less it doesn't mean the earth is cooling because it's happened before because of natural variability and other factors. For instance look at the years from 1894 to 1904. The year to year variations in that period are similar to what we've seen since 1999 but that didn't stop the warming that's happened since then. By your description there was a cooling trend from '98-'99, '02-'04, '05-'06 and '07-'08. There was a warming trend from '96-'98, '00-'02, '04-05 and '06-'07. From a climate perspective those are absurd statements. If you have some secret information about why it will start really cooling off in the future you should let us know about it.
If you take the 2000s to be 2000 to 2009 then there's only 14 days left in that period and it's not possible that it won't be the warmest decade on record. Even if you take the 2000s to be 2001 to 2010 then 2010 would have to be so cold to bring the decadal average down lower than the 1990s that it's ridiculous to contemplate. As I said, every year since 1998 has been warmer than any year before 1991 and only 1999 and 2000 were cooler than any year since 1989. I don't take that to be a cooling trend.
I don't doubt that anything about climate models boggles your mind as you obviously have no clue about what they model. Maybe I can simplify it enough for you but I have my doubts. Climate fundamentally is the statistics of weather. It is a description of the trend of weather over long periods of time. To use a radio analogy climate is the carrier signal that the noise of weather and natural variability vary around. Climate models are projecting that carrier signal, or you could say the average weather. They don't and as I said can't project the details because they are chaotic. Another example of a chaotic system that you can model the general characteristics of is a lump of radioactive material. It's impossible to predict when any specific atom will decay but it is possible to say that in a half life of the material half of the atoms will have decayed.
We understand natural variability just fine (but of course there's always more details to learn). While you can't give the exact timing and strength of something like the El Nino/La Nina cycle you can say something like "Based on past records of the phenomenon, over the next 30 year period we expect about 7 El Ninos and 7 La Ninas to occur and it will have this effect on climate". Since climate models don't attempt to predict those short term variations that's good enough to use in the model.
On solar, what climate scientists say is that solar input is factored into the models because that is the source of nearly all of the energy input into the earth system but the current solar minimum can only be used in hindcasts since it's a phenomenon that can only be forecast in general terms of the 22 year solar cycle and past performance being expected to continue. No one predicted the current unusual solar minimum. Maybe in the future we'll be able to do better. But when you're modeling a 30 year trend it doesn't matter much exactly what the solar cycle does as long as it doesn't stray too far from past observations (which is hasn't) because the variations average out over that long of a period. If a natural variation averages out like that over the period you're examining then it's reasonable to model it with a straight line that is the expected average over 30 years because you're not trying to project the short term variations.
I'm not trying to disqualify the 2000s at all. Please include it. Just don't make up your own definition of what climate is. There has been no discernible cooling trend lately unless you cherry pick 1998 as your starting year and even that cooling trend is barely discernible. That's just not a scientifically valid way to do it.
I challenge you to disprove any of my statements with real data. You may be able to nitpick some of it but the basic ideas are scientifically correct.
There has not been recent global cooling in any meaningful way. Take a look at this graph of global temperature since 1880 and tell me that the past decade looks any different than any other similar period. Despite being the coldest year of the decade 2008 was still warmer than any year before 1998 and 2009 will be a warmer year than 2008 unless the next 15 days are -200 or so. The 2000s are still going to be the warmest decade on record.
Climate models didn't fail to predict "this" because they don't even attempt to predict it. Climate models don't try to account for natural variability because they can't. You can't predict the timing of an El Nino or the lower than normal solar minimum we're currently experiencing or any number of other natural factors that affect the short term weather but average out over longer periods of time. That's why (at least some) climate models project a 30 year average trend line. That's long enough to smooth out the effects of short term variations like we're currently experiencing. That's the difference between climate and weather.
"50+ foot" was just my wild ass guess but it's probably in the ball park. If all the ice on Greenland and Antarctica were to melt it would raise sea level around 70 meters. That's 230 feet. It would probably take a few thousand years to melt all of it because it's a damn big ice cube but it could happen. The Wikipedia article say 0.8-1.3 meters by 2100 but it doesn't say much about what happens after that. Notice I did mention 200-300 years.
It's been at least 15 million years since CO2 levels were as high in the atmosphere as they are now. Throughout all of the time humans and our immediate ancestors have existed CO2 has hardly been above 300 ppm. It's the CO2 level we and the other living things on the planet we coexist with and depend on are evolved for. I doubt you would like the climate that existed when the coal and oil were being laid down very much.
Did you even bother to read the story? I picked it because it was the first reprint of the AP article I found on Google.
What the article basically says is that it's not statistically valid to say there has been global cooling lately. If you look at the temperature record of the last 130 years there are several periods where global temperatures dropped for 5-10 years. It doesn't change the long term upward trend. So when you say "recent global cooling" you're propagating misinformation (that's fancy talk for telling a lie).
I think we both pretty much agree about this. Too much binary thinking is dangerous in a complex world. I may have overreacted a bit after reading a bunch of the previous posts. My point is there are issues in science that they don't spend time debating because unless someone comes up with some totally out of the blue insight they're not going to change much.
It may temporarily help with global warming but it won't last that long. The aerosols and SO2 pumped into the atmosphere will have a cooling effect but that probably won't last more than a decade or so. A super volcano eruption may be a case where a volcano actually does pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to be truly significant in adding to global warming.
The IPCC report projections on sea level rise is now considered very conservative. The latest projections are 1-2 meters of sea level rise by 2100. It wouldn't surprise me to see that getting adjusted upwards again in 10 years.
It sounds to me like deniers are saying "You can't explain this to my satisfaction so I'm not going to believe a single thing you say".
Every model in science is wrong in the sense that Newtons Laws of Motion are wrong. The question is are they better than random guessing and they are much better.
I suspect the level of proof you're asking for is not achievable before it's too late. Well it's never too late to start doing something but the later you wait the more drastic the cure.
Just for the sake of precision it was one editor that got the paper in. Later the editor-in-chief and several other editors (but not the one that put the paper in) resigned when the publisher wouldn't let them print a retraction.
They were not trying to block publication of papers they didn't agree with. The incident referred to in the CRU emails is in reference to a paper that was poorly written and contained errors which should have never passed peer review. For instance they used records more reflective of changes in moisture than temperature. Why would you want publish in a journal that has ineffective peer review?
There was a cooling trend from the mid 1940s to the 1970s. It it attributed to unrestricted pollution and increasing industrialization releasing SO2 and other aerosols. We started cleaning those up in the 1970s when the temperatures started rising again. "The coming ice age" got sensationalized by a couple of articles in Newsweek and Time but it was never a consensus in the climate community. A study showed from 1965 to 1979 there were 7 papers about global cooling published and 42 papers about global warming.
Humans are not about to destroy the planet in the long view. But we might make it difficult or impossible to support the level of population we have. If that's true it probably won't be pretty how we get to that lower population level.
Slashdot Mirror
Been there, done that. The scientists have already done that analysis and determined what stations they would use. Maybe you could argue with the criteria they used to determine what stations to use but to just say they "had no siting issues or problems" without reference to the criteria the scientists used to exclude them is bogus.
Thanks for that interpretation.
Just eyeballing the graph it doesn't look like the differences after 1950 are significant enough to change any fundamental conclusions, just some details that scientists pay attention to.
If you look at the graph you'll notice that there is essentially no difference between the two lines after 1950. So it doesn't affect anything much after 1950.
It's all about economics and ideology. Nothing can stand in the way of the "Free Market". (btw TANSTAAFM). They're afraid it's going to hurt their pocketbooks and don't realize how much worse they'll be hurting if we don't do something about it. They reject the science because of their ideology and accuse the scientists of being ideologues instead. Isn't that called projection? I'm doing it so the other guys must be to?
Get off my lawn!
I was going to mod you up but instead here's a comparison of the difference between the IEA stations and the CRU stations. I don't read russian so I don't know which is which but I suspect the blue line is IEA and the red CRU. It shows they've been nearly in lockstep since 1950 and well synchronized since at least 1900.
Gavin Smith of the GISS commented "... the issue is very likely to be connected to instrument changes/metadata changes that the IEA analysis doesn't look at at all."
But Russia is only a part of the world and even if the IEA were right it doesn't affect anything else enough to change the fundamental conclusions about global warming.
What gives you the idea that increasing warmth would make the Earth a uniformly warm paradise? That statement has no basis in reality.
There would still be the fact the the polar regions receive much less sunlight than the equatorial region that would keep that from being true. It would take truly violent weather to continuously transfer enough heat to make and keep the poles as warm as the equator. The configuration of the continents and oceans would have an effect as well. Uniform warmth wouldn't prevent rain shadows behind mountain ranges from causing a desert for example.
If you had studied atmospheric science even a little you would know that your water vapor statement is ridiculous. The upper atmosphere is very dry because it's very cold. Cold air can't hold as much water vapor as warm air. About 99.99% of the water vapor in the atmosphere is in the troposphere (that's the atmosphere up to around 30,000 feet). That has been scientifically measured and is an indisputable fact and has always been true just because of the physics involved. The water that caused sea level to rise came from the melting of the continental ice sheets at the end of the last glacial period. When 10,000 feet of ice sitting on land melts it's going to cause sea levels to rise.
CO2 levels in the atmosphere were much higher in the past than they are now so yes, the fossil fuel we are digging up came from carbon in the atmosphere. Your belief that whole Earth was a warm paradise then is just a fantasy. CO2 in the atmosphere is now higher than it's been in at least 15 million years and all of the life now is adapted to the current level of CO2 and the climate it produces.
And how many other dips in temperature do you see in the graph? What "in any meaningful way" means that if the cooling trend is 15 years or less it doesn't mean the earth is cooling because it's happened before because of natural variability and other factors. For instance look at the years from 1894 to 1904. The year to year variations in that period are similar to what we've seen since 1999 but that didn't stop the warming that's happened since then. By your description there was a cooling trend from '98-'99, '02-'04, '05-'06 and '07-'08. There was a warming trend from '96-'98, '00-'02, '04-05 and '06-'07. From a climate perspective those are absurd statements. If you have some secret information about why it will start really cooling off in the future you should let us know about it.
If you take the 2000s to be 2000 to 2009 then there's only 14 days left in that period and it's not possible that it won't be the warmest decade on record. Even if you take the 2000s to be 2001 to 2010 then 2010 would have to be so cold to bring the decadal average down lower than the 1990s that it's ridiculous to contemplate. As I said, every year since 1998 has been warmer than any year before 1991 and only 1999 and 2000 were cooler than any year since 1989. I don't take that to be a cooling trend.
I don't doubt that anything about climate models boggles your mind as you obviously have no clue about what they model. Maybe I can simplify it enough for you but I have my doubts. Climate fundamentally is the statistics of weather. It is a description of the trend of weather over long periods of time. To use a radio analogy climate is the carrier signal that the noise of weather and natural variability vary around. Climate models are projecting that carrier signal, or you could say the average weather. They don't and as I said can't project the details because they are chaotic. Another example of a chaotic system that you can model the general characteristics of is a lump of radioactive material. It's impossible to predict when any specific atom will decay but it is possible to say that in a half life of the material half of the atoms will have decayed.
We understand natural variability just fine (but of course there's always more details to learn). While you can't give the exact timing and strength of something like the El Nino/La Nina cycle you can say something like "Based on past records of the phenomenon, over the next 30 year period we expect about 7 El Ninos and 7 La Ninas to occur and it will have this effect on climate". Since climate models don't attempt to predict those short term variations that's good enough to use in the model.
On solar, what climate scientists say is that solar input is factored into the models because that is the source of nearly all of the energy input into the earth system but the current solar minimum can only be used in hindcasts since it's a phenomenon that can only be forecast in general terms of the 22 year solar cycle and past performance being expected to continue. No one predicted the current unusual solar minimum. Maybe in the future we'll be able to do better. But when you're modeling a 30 year trend it doesn't matter much exactly what the solar cycle does as long as it doesn't stray too far from past observations (which is hasn't) because the variations average out over that long of a period. If a natural variation averages out like that over the period you're examining then it's reasonable to model it with a straight line that is the expected average over 30 years because you're not trying to project the short term variations.
I'm not trying to disqualify the 2000s at all. Please include it. Just don't make up your own definition of what climate is. There has been no discernible cooling trend lately unless you cherry pick 1998 as your starting year and even that cooling trend is barely discernible. That's just not a scientifically valid way to do it.
I challenge you to disprove any of my statements with real data. You may be able to nitpick some of it but the basic ideas are scientifically correct.
Yeah but they're bitches.
There has not been recent global cooling in any meaningful way. Take a look at this graph of global temperature since 1880 and tell me that the past decade looks any different than any other similar period. Despite being the coldest year of the decade 2008 was still warmer than any year before 1998 and 2009 will be a warmer year than 2008 unless the next 15 days are -200 or so. The 2000s are still going to be the warmest decade on record.
Climate models didn't fail to predict "this" because they don't even attempt to predict it. Climate models don't try to account for natural variability because they can't. You can't predict the timing of an El Nino or the lower than normal solar minimum we're currently experiencing or any number of other natural factors that affect the short term weather but average out over longer periods of time. That's why (at least some) climate models project a 30 year average trend line. That's long enough to smooth out the effects of short term variations like we're currently experiencing. That's the difference between climate and weather.
"50+ foot" was just my wild ass guess but it's probably in the ball park. If all the ice on Greenland and Antarctica were to melt it would raise sea level around 70 meters. That's 230 feet. It would probably take a few thousand years to melt all of it because it's a damn big ice cube but it could happen. The Wikipedia article say 0.8-1.3 meters by 2100 but it doesn't say much about what happens after that. Notice I did mention 200-300 years.
It's been at least 15 million years since CO2 levels were as high in the atmosphere as they are now. Throughout all of the time humans and our immediate ancestors have existed CO2 has hardly been above 300 ppm. It's the CO2 level we and the other living things on the planet we coexist with and depend on are evolved for. I doubt you would like the climate that existed when the coal and oil were being laid down very much.
Take a look at this.
The "adjusted upwards again" part was just my supposition.
Did you even bother to read the story? I picked it because it was the first reprint of the AP article I found on Google.
What the article basically says is that it's not statistically valid to say there has been global cooling lately. If you look at the temperature record of the last 130 years there are several periods where global temperatures dropped for 5-10 years. It doesn't change the long term upward trend. So when you say "recent global cooling" you're propagating misinformation (that's fancy talk for telling a lie).
I think we both pretty much agree about this. Too much binary thinking is dangerous in a complex world. I may have overreacted a bit after reading a bunch of the previous posts. My point is there are issues in science that they don't spend time debating because unless someone comes up with some totally out of the blue insight they're not going to change much.
Wasn't it fowl weather that landed US Airways 1549 in the Hudson River?
I thought the Toba eruption 75,000 years ago was on a similar scale to a Yellowstone eruption.
If India's death rate was 48 per 100 their population would be dropping like a rock.
Problem with that is that Yellowstone is a suicide bomber with a deadman switch.
Only if you're not another cockroach.
Not even close with any technology we currently have.
It may temporarily help with global warming but it won't last that long. The aerosols and SO2 pumped into the atmosphere will have a cooling effect but that probably won't last more than a decade or so. A super volcano eruption may be a case where a volcano actually does pump enough CO2 into the atmosphere to be truly significant in adding to global warming.
The IPCC report projections on sea level rise is now considered very conservative. The latest projections are 1-2 meters of sea level rise by 2100. It wouldn't surprise me to see that getting adjusted upwards again in 10 years.
It sounds to me like deniers are saying "You can't explain this to my satisfaction so I'm not going to believe a single thing you say".
Every model in science is wrong in the sense that Newtons Laws of Motion are wrong. The question is are they better than random guessing and they are much better.
I suspect the level of proof you're asking for is not achievable before it's too late. Well it's never too late to start doing something but the later you wait the more drastic the cure.
Just for the sake of precision it was one editor that got the paper in. Later the editor-in-chief and several other editors (but not the one that put the paper in) resigned when the publisher wouldn't let them print a retraction.
They were not trying to block publication of papers they didn't agree with. The incident referred to in the CRU emails is in reference to a paper that was poorly written and contained errors which should have never passed peer review. For instance they used records more reflective of changes in moisture than temperature. Why would you want publish in a journal that has ineffective peer review?
There was a cooling trend from the mid 1940s to the 1970s. It it attributed to unrestricted pollution and increasing industrialization releasing SO2 and other aerosols. We started cleaning those up in the 1970s when the temperatures started rising again. "The coming ice age" got sensationalized by a couple of articles in Newsweek and Time but it was never a consensus in the climate community. A study showed from 1965 to 1979 there were 7 papers about global cooling published and 42 papers about global warming.
Humans are not about to destroy the planet in the long view. But we might make it difficult or impossible to support the level of population we have. If that's true it probably won't be pretty how we get to that lower population level.