I know how you feel but I keep going because the more you keep correcting their errors the more people on the fence are going to see them for what they really are. Climate scientists have better things to do with their time than wasting it on refuting claims that they examined and discarded a decade ago.
BTW, if anyone knows of a climate model that correctly predicts past, known weather, please post a link.
Why would you expect a climate model to predict weather? That's not their function. Rather they predict the envelope that weather fits within. The chaotic nature of weather is not an issue with climate because it just defines the limits of the chaotic behavior not what happens between those limits. My understanding is that climate models do a pretty good job of predicting past climate.
What recent global cooling? If you think it's been cooling since 1998 you're wrong. AP gave the temperature data to several statisticians without telling them what the data represented and asked them to analyze it for trends. They found no cooling trend over time. Read the story here.
Except the reasons for blacklisting the journal Climate Research were scientifically sound. From the Wikipedia article on Sallie Baliunas.
Shortly thereafter, 13 of the authors of papers cited by Baliunas and Soon refuted her interpretation of their work.[12] There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result.
Yes, scientists are not always right but until someone is able to show why they are wrong I think the odds are you go with the current understanding. To reject what climate scientists say is happening because it doesn't fit your ideology and will force you to adjust your lifestyle is just stupid because if they're right and we don't try to do anything about it the crash when it comes will just be that much harder.
Yes, perhaps in 200 or 300 years after all of the permafrost has melted and and the bogginess has gone away we could settle the frozen arctic waste. Of course if it warms enough to make these frozen arctic wastes habitable it will probably mean enough ice has melted or is at least on the way to melting from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to raise sea level in the 50+ foot range substantially reducing the available area of dry land. Meanwhile the acidification of the oceans from absorption of atmospheric CO2 will likely disrupt the ocean ecosystems that humans depend on for a substantial amount of food. Areas that are now being farmed may become deserts disrupting the supply of food. A bunch of species are likely to go extinct and who knows what we're losing because of that.
The earth is a complex system and the changes may cause any number of unexpected results that we will have to try and cope with. It's not likely to be easy like you seem to think.
The problems in Darfur may well be largely caused by climate change. The Sahara desert is advancing to the south forcing nomadic people to change their range encroaching on farmers lands.
That's one of the biggest problems with the proponents of doing nothing to respond to global warming. China is making big investments in green technology as they're doing in Europe as well. The US is not going to be the leader in this field and we'll be buying it from overseas. There's a wind farm they're putting in in Texas that has windmills imported from China. Those could have been made in the US putting our citizens to work.
LOL! The editors that left the journal Climate Change resigned because the publisher would not let them inform the readers that the publication of the Soon & Baliunas paper had been a mistake and they would change the review process to avoid similar failures in the future. The editors that resigned were the ones that supported AGW. I think scientists are within their rights to not publish in journals that don't have proper review.
Interestingly it was the paper from Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas published in the journal Climate Research that is the source of the kerfuffle in the emails over blacklisting the journal and the journals editors resigning. The paper was poorly written and should not have been published.
What FOIA request are you talking about? If you think it's the one in the CRU emails you are wrong. They have nothing to do with NOAA/GISS as they were made under Britain's FOI laws to the CRU.
MrHanky, one correction on your #2, it's the C12 to C13 ratio that points to fossil carbon as the source of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. C14 has a half life of 5730 years so there is practically no C14 in fossil fuels because it's all decayed. Plants prefer C12 to C13 because it's lighter so there is a higher ratio of C12 to C13 in fossil fuels than in the general atmosphere.
Most of the data is open. Links can be found here and at the bottom are links to master repositories of climate data.
I would also point out that most of the thermometers used are not in the control of the climatologists using the data. Instead they are controlled by hundreds of different entities, mostly government, around the world that collect the information.
Right now, it looks like the ocean can only rise a couple cm/100 years(a.k.a. undetectable compared to the tide).
Sea level has risen 5.1 cm (2+ inches) in the past 15 years as measured by satellites. That means the top of high tide is 2" higher which is not insignificant. Current projections are for 1-2 meters by 2100.
I think 2 would have made better sense if you said "Weather is to climate as individual choice is to economics". That's probably what you meant to say.
So your economic concerns trumps the science? Global warming can't be right because it will cost you too much? Now we're getting to the bottom of it!
You're electric bill going up >50% is hyperbole. Estimates for the cap&trade bill say it will cost perhaps $10 a month for the average family. That cost would be spread over not only your electric bill but the cost of other things as well.
When you ask scientists in the field what the number for CO2 emissions should be they say "The correct number is zero" so it's worse than you thought. It'll take us 30 or 40 years to get there though.
The data you're so worried about is but a small and relatively inconsequential piece of the totality of climate science. If you want the code and data for the GISS you can find it here. You'll need a big computer to run it though. Links to other sources of raw and processed data and climate model source code can be found here.
Slashdot Mirror
Who was a PhD candidate in physics at the time he worked in the patent office and was well known to the faculty.
I know how you feel but I keep going because the more you keep correcting their errors the more people on the fence are going to see them for what they really are. Climate scientists have better things to do with their time than wasting it on refuting claims that they examined and discarded a decade ago.
Why would you expect a climate model to predict weather? That's not their function. Rather they predict the envelope that weather fits within. The chaotic nature of weather is not an issue with climate because it just defines the limits of the chaotic behavior not what happens between those limits. My understanding is that climate models do a pretty good job of predicting past climate.
You can find links to NOAA's data here. If you want links to the historical raw data I believe you can find it here or here but you may have to apply corrections to the data yourself.
What recent global cooling? If you think it's been cooling since 1998 you're wrong. AP gave the temperature data to several statisticians without telling them what the data represented and asked them to analyze it for trends. They found no cooling trend over time. Read the story here.
Except the reasons for blacklisting the journal Climate Research were scientifically sound. From the Wikipedia article on Sallie Baliunas.
Shortly thereafter, 13 of the authors of papers cited by Baliunas and Soon refuted her interpretation of their work.[12] There were three main objections: Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric temperature anomalies; and they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends. More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result.
Yes, scientists are not always right but until someone is able to show why they are wrong I think the odds are you go with the current understanding. To reject what climate scientists say is happening because it doesn't fit your ideology and will force you to adjust your lifestyle is just stupid because if they're right and we don't try to do anything about it the crash when it comes will just be that much harder.
You're right. I missed that you said CO rather than CO2. Nevermind.
Yes, perhaps in 200 or 300 years after all of the permafrost has melted and and the bogginess has gone away we could settle the frozen arctic waste. Of course if it warms enough to make these frozen arctic wastes habitable it will probably mean enough ice has melted or is at least on the way to melting from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to raise sea level in the 50+ foot range substantially reducing the available area of dry land. Meanwhile the acidification of the oceans from absorption of atmospheric CO2 will likely disrupt the ocean ecosystems that humans depend on for a substantial amount of food. Areas that are now being farmed may become deserts disrupting the supply of food. A bunch of species are likely to go extinct and who knows what we're losing because of that.
The earth is a complex system and the changes may cause any number of unexpected results that we will have to try and cope with. It's not likely to be easy like you seem to think.
The problems in Darfur may well be largely caused by climate change. The Sahara desert is advancing to the south forcing nomadic people to change their range encroaching on farmers lands.
That's one of the biggest problems with the proponents of doing nothing to respond to global warming. China is making big investments in green technology as they're doing in Europe as well. The US is not going to be the leader in this field and we'll be buying it from overseas. There's a wind farm they're putting in in Texas that has windmills imported from China. Those could have been made in the US putting our citizens to work.
LOL! The editors that left the journal Climate Change resigned because the publisher would not let them inform the readers that the publication of the Soon & Baliunas paper had been a mistake and they would change the review process to avoid similar failures in the future. The editors that resigned were the ones that supported AGW. I think scientists are within their rights to not publish in journals that don't have proper review.
I think you underestimate the disruption global warming may cause to our civilization.
Interestingly it was the paper from Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas published in the journal Climate Research that is the source of the kerfuffle in the emails over blacklisting the journal and the journals editors resigning. The paper was poorly written and should not have been published.
What FOIA request are you talking about? If you think it's the one in the CRU emails you are wrong. They have nothing to do with NOAA/GISS as they were made under Britain's FOI laws to the CRU.
MrHanky, one correction on your #2, it's the C12 to C13 ratio that points to fossil carbon as the source of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. C14 has a half life of 5730 years so there is practically no C14 in fossil fuels because it's all decayed. Plants prefer C12 to C13 because it's lighter so there is a higher ratio of C12 to C13 in fossil fuels than in the general atmosphere.
A catalytic converter actually increases the output of CO2 by converting unburned hydro-carbons to CO2 and water mostly.
Most of the data is open. Links can be found here and at the bottom are links to master repositories of climate data.
I would also point out that most of the thermometers used are not in the control of the climatologists using the data. Instead they are controlled by hundreds of different entities, mostly government, around the world that collect the information.
You can find a bunch of links to other data and model source code here.
Source code for the GISS ModelE general circulation model are available here. If you look around the site you can find data too. Knock yourself out.
Sea level has risen 5.1 cm (2+ inches) in the past 15 years as measured by satellites. That means the top of high tide is 2" higher which is not insignificant. Current projections are for 1-2 meters by 2100.
The ozone hole has not "nearly disappeared". It's just mostly quit getting worse.
It was named Greenland so gullible climate change deniers could use it as a talking point in the debate.
I think 2 would have made better sense if you said "Weather is to climate as individual choice is to economics". That's probably what you meant to say.
So your economic concerns trumps the science? Global warming can't be right because it will cost you too much? Now we're getting to the bottom of it!
You're electric bill going up >50% is hyperbole. Estimates for the cap&trade bill say it will cost perhaps $10 a month for the average family. That cost would be spread over not only your electric bill but the cost of other things as well.
When you ask scientists in the field what the number for CO2 emissions should be they say "The correct number is zero" so it's worse than you thought. It'll take us 30 or 40 years to get there though.
The data you're so worried about is but a small and relatively inconsequential piece of the totality of climate science. If you want the code and data for the GISS you can find it here. You'll need a big computer to run it though. Links to other sources of raw and processed data and climate model source code can be found here.