For sake of playing the science game, though, could you concisely state your understanding of a falsifiable hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?
Observation: analyses of global surface temperatures indicate a long-term warming trend.
Hypothesis: the surface of the Earth is warmer than in the past.
Testable prediction: phenomena sensitive to Earth’s surface temperature will reflect that increase.
Results: satellite temperature measurements show similar warming; most glaciers are shrinking; lakes and rivers are freezing later and thawing sooner; oceans are expanding; plant and animal communities are mostly moving poleward.
Conclusion: the Earth’s surface has been warming.
So why do many people not believe the Earth’s surface has been warming, and what further evidence or predictions would convince them?
Observation: Tyndall gas concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere.
Hypothesis: The rate of increase of such gases is sufficient to cause global temperatures to rise by a couple of degrees by the middle of the next 21st century.
Testable prediction: A substantial portion of temperature changes so far should be quantitatively attributable to Tyndall gases.
Results: Spectral radiance emitted to space consistent with Tyndall gas concentrations (confirms ability to calculate radiative forcing); magnitude of Tyndall gas radiative forcing larger than that of all other known forcing agents; observed temperature changes similar in magnitude to those estimated from forcings (confirms ballpark estimates of climate sensitivity); observed pattern of temperature changes match Tyndall gas pattern better than that of all other known forcing agents.
Conclusion: Anthropogenic global warming is real and significant.
Based on these scientific predictions that have come true, even the most skeptical scientifically-literate individual ought to be able to conclude that the balance of evidence favors the reality of anthropogenic global warming. So why do many people not believe that anthropogenic global warming is real, and what further evidence or correct predictions would convince them?
Spencer is understandably agitated and overwrought. His blog is not currently the best place to find level headed discussion. In the interest of restoring your faith in humanity I recommend heading over to Texas climatologist John Neilson-Gammon's blog where there is a more level headed discussion of the review process for this paper.
as in we know that moving from 0 to ~250ppm causes a bit of warming. That's cute but the 19th century is over and done with. The real question, of course, is whether what is happening now, ie 330 to 400 ppm also causes warming.
You can find the answer to that question with the following formula (spoiler - it does):
dF=5.35*ln(c/c0) W/m^-2
Where C is the current ppm of carbon. C0 is the reference ppm.
Regarding the CRU data (again, nothing to do with the Mann report). This was done in the 70's. This was a time when data was stored on reels of magnetic tape. The data was warehoused and someone tossed it. This was well before there was any political maneuvering by either greenpeace or industry. NASA tossed the original tape of the moon landing. I still believe that a man walked on the moon. Either way, if you don't trust the CRU then you should look at one of the other four reconstructions: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/offset:-0.074/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/uah/offset:0.225/plot/rss/offset:0.14
This has nothing to do with Mann's study of paleoclimate records. All of his data is available. Mann's study has been replicated time and time again using different data and different methods for reconstruction. The results are solid.
Check the literature and ignore the media. The literature is motivated to find truth. The media is motivated to sell advertisements - and possibly there are other motivations depending on the media in question. If you are able, you would do well to go straight to the literature. I recommend starting with the IPCC AR4 WG1. It is about six years out of date but is a good summary of the literature at the time.
The studies author concluded: "those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step."
Labeling the graph a "cloud graph" is somewhat misleading.
I would think the crucial information would be if there had been a significant change in the cosmic ray flux over the last century and how that correlates with a change in cloud coverage or density.
Studies in that area have been inconclusive. The IPCC AR4 summarizes:
There appears to be a small but statistically significant positive correlation between cloud over the UK and galactic cosmic ray flux during 1951 to 2000 (Harrison and Stephenson, 2006). Contrarily, cloud cover anomalies from 1900 to 1987 over the USA do have a signal at 11 years that is anti-phased with the galactic cosmic ray flux (Udelhofen and Cess, 2001)
Here are some more recent studies which also have been unable to show a definitive link:
Calogovic, J., et al. (2010): Sudden cosmic ray decreases: No change of global cloud cover. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L03802, doi:10.1029/2009GL041327.
Erlykin, A.D., et al (2009a): On the correlation between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 71, 17-18, 1794-1806, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.06.012.
Kulmala, M., et al. (2010): Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 10, 1885-1898, doi:10.5194/acp-10-1885-2010.
Pierce, J.R., and P.J. Adams (2009): Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates? Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L09820, doi:10.1029/2009GL037946.
Sloan, T., and A.W. Wolfendale (2008): Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover. Environmental Research Letters, 3, 024001, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024001.
Be aware that HSThompson holds many strange opinions about science. For instance,
1) He is insistent that that seasonal temperatures are caused by ocean currents. Most people believe that the seasons are caused by tilt of the Earth with respect to orbit. The side tilted towards the sun experiences summer.
2) He believes that the current warming can be explained by the 0.075 W/m^2 heat from the Earth's core but that the ~2 W/m^2 measured warming from anthropogenic CO2 (or roughly the equivalent energy of 56,000 nuclear bombs every hour) is vanishingly insignificant.
2. The Subject's data is documented and available to researchers.
Is #2 even true? My understanding is that the raw data is missing.
That's because you get your information from disinformers. The data has always been available. The methods are described in the paper. The results have been replicated time and time again using different methods. They are very sound. This is how science works. Mann was a pioneer. His methods were improved upon in subsequent analysis - by Mann and others. That the initial study is not perfect is not a sign of misconduct. That his results turned out to be right indicates that he was on the right track.
Didn't you hear the GP? Science is NEVER settled, it is only through questioning and skepticism that science can progress. Oh wait, I see that you repeat the sentiment (with expletives!). I guess you guys are right. We shouldn't trust science, let alone take action on climate change. Although... Heat seeking missiles would behave differently if the greenhouse theory was wrong: http://stsimonsislandgaguys.blogspot.com/2011/05/gilbert-norman-plass.html Bah. Science.
I know what you mean. Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity always seemed suspect to me. Which is why I always try to remain inside buildings or attached to the ground in some way, just in they are wrong and gravity can change into a repulsive force.
If they each have different theories they can't both be right. That's just common sense. Buckle up. That's what I say.
After the most recent exoneration, Fox was holding out on this NSF report as the last word on the issue: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/06/climate-gate-michael-mann/ They felt that the NSF was the "only independent government organization with the skill and tools to investigate effectively"
Their findings are not surprising. Mann's research has been replicated using different methods time and time again. Here are just a few examples:
The study you site reaches a similar conclusion by looking at sea ice extent over the last 10000 years. They find that polar ice is much less stable than previously thought. They find that 8000 years ago there was likely much less ice than there is today. This is surprising because although we were at the height of the current interglacial at that time, it was not likely much warmer than it is today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
There is a bit of a game each year as people speculate how low the arctic sea ice extent will go. The three measures are volume, area, and extent. It looks like we are certainly poised to break the previous record for volume, likely to break it for area, and may possibly break the previous record for extent.
Arctic ice minimum volume averaged 16500 km^3 between the late '70s to early 90's. We are now down to below 4500 km^3 and dropping fast.
The arctic ice acts as a buffer against global warming. The sea ice reflects 80% of incoming solar radiation back into space whereas open ocean will absorb about 90%. As the ice melts we could see accelerated global warming.
The good news is that the retreating ice may expose vast new oil resources.
Alright. I think you are being a bit pedantic but if you would like: You believe that seasons are defined by tilt wrt orbit, but you think that seasonal temperatures are caused by ocean currents.
Wow. You argued against my statement "Seasons are caused by tilt wrt orbit. Summer is on the side tilted towards the sun." You argued that seasons are not caused primarily by tilt wrt orbit. Nothing could be clearer than you stating what you do believe to be the cause of the seasons. Instead you keep talking about the definition of seasons vs the temperature at any given latitude. You are not making it at all clear what you believe to be the cause of the seasons. This is not at all like asking you whether you stopped beating your wife. It is truly bizarre that you will not give a straight answer.
Maybe if you would just state your position? You believe that the seasons are cause by...? I don't know why you are so afraid to complete that sentence.
Ok. This conversation is beyond tedious. You have been given ample opportunity to clarify your position. To sum up:
1) Seasons are primarily caused by currents (rather than because the Earth's axis is tilted wrt its orbit with summer being on the side tilted towards the sun).
2) The current warming is more likely to be caused by the ~0.075 W/m^2 heat from the Earth's core but the ~2 W/m^2 warming measured from anthropogenic CO2 is vanishingly insignificant. He seems to think that the earth has been stock piling the 0.075 W/m^2 from the core and is only releasing it now.
3) He was able to conclude (after much hemming and hawing) that the following graph shows an upward temperature trend over the last 100 years: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/offset:-0.074/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/uah/offset:0.225/plot/rss/offset:0.14 However he felt that using all data from all reconstructions was a form of cherry picking, and that even though all five reconstructions show the same results (even the ones done by skeptics) the results were likely fabricated.
So previously you had said that geothermal energy was a likely explanation for the current warming and that the impact of CO2 was vanishingly small. Do you still stand by those statements?
Does this have anything to do with what you believe to be the cause of the seasons? If so, then why are you asking me? You can just tell me what you believe to be the cause of the seasons.
I'd rather not get side tracked onto a tangent. Let's talk about your theory of CHGW (Core Heat Global Warming) where core heat is stored up over millennia to be released only now. You originally believed that this was a more likely explanation for the current warming than AGW. Do you still believe this? Can you elaborate on what was keeping the heat from escaping previously and when that changed? Your theory is very interesting and really demonstrates your skill at applying Occam's razor.
Slashdot Mirror
For sake of playing the science game, though, could you concisely state your understanding of a falsifiable hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming?
John Nielsen-Gammon has a characteristically wry response to this classic canard:
Observation: analyses of global surface temperatures indicate a long-term warming trend.
Hypothesis: the surface of the Earth is warmer than in the past.
Testable prediction: phenomena sensitive to Earth’s surface temperature will reflect that increase.
Results: satellite temperature measurements show similar warming; most glaciers are shrinking; lakes and rivers are freezing later and thawing sooner; oceans are expanding; plant and animal communities are mostly moving poleward.
Conclusion: the Earth’s surface has been warming.
So why do many people not believe the Earth’s surface has been warming, and what further evidence or predictions would convince them?
Observation: Tyndall gas concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere.
Hypothesis: The rate of increase of such gases is sufficient to cause global temperatures to rise by a couple of degrees by the middle of the next 21st century.
Testable prediction: A substantial portion of temperature changes so far should be quantitatively attributable to Tyndall gases.
Results: Spectral radiance emitted to space consistent with Tyndall gas concentrations (confirms ability to calculate radiative forcing); magnitude of Tyndall gas radiative forcing larger than that of all other known forcing agents; observed temperature changes similar in magnitude to those estimated from forcings (confirms ballpark estimates of climate sensitivity); observed pattern of temperature changes match Tyndall gas pattern better than that of all other known forcing agents.
Conclusion: Anthropogenic global warming is real and significant.
Based on these scientific predictions that have come true, even the most skeptical scientifically-literate individual ought to be able to conclude that the balance of evidence favors the reality of anthropogenic global warming. So why do many people not believe that anthropogenic global warming is real, and what further evidence or correct predictions would convince them?
Spencer is understandably agitated and overwrought. His blog is not currently the best place to find level headed discussion. In the interest of restoring your faith in humanity I recommend heading over to Texas climatologist John Neilson-Gammon's blog where there is a more level headed discussion of the review process for this paper.
Resign vs. retract. Was the resignation due to a 'lazy' selection of reviewers on a politically hot (no pun intended) topic?
Wagner says no in his resignation, but the typically level headed John Neilson Gammon (who has published with sceptics such as Watts and Peilk) says yes: http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2011/09/spencer-braswell-and-the-review-process/
Are Spencer's results based on an allegedly "overly simplistic model"?
Allegedly.
as in we know that moving from 0 to ~250ppm causes a bit of warming. That's cute but the 19th century is over and done with. The real question, of course, is whether what is happening now, ie 330 to 400 ppm also causes warming.
You can find the answer to that question with the following formula (spoiler - it does):
dF=5.35*ln(c/c0) W/m^-2
Where C is the current ppm of carbon. C0 is the reference ppm.
Regarding the CRU data (again, nothing to do with the Mann report). This was done in the 70's. This was a time when data was stored on reels of magnetic tape. The data was warehoused and someone tossed it. This was well before there was any political maneuvering by either greenpeace or industry. NASA tossed the original tape of the moon landing. I still believe that a man walked on the moon. Either way, if you don't trust the CRU then you should look at one of the other four reconstructions: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/offset:-0.074/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/uah/offset:0.225/plot/rss/offset:0.14
They all show the same thing.
This has nothing to do with Mann's study of paleoclimate records. All of his data is available. Mann's study has been replicated time and time again using different data and different methods for reconstruction. The results are solid.
Check the literature and ignore the media. The literature is motivated to find truth. The media is motivated to sell advertisements - and possibly there are other motivations depending on the media in question. If you are able, you would do well to go straight to the literature. I recommend starting with the IPCC AR4 WG1. It is about six years out of date but is a good summary of the literature at the time.
The studies author concluded: "those particles are far too small to serve as seeds for clouds. At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step."
Labeling the graph a "cloud graph" is somewhat misleading.
I don't know, this one looks pretty good. I'm going to keep my eye open for more submissions from this Layzej guy ;)
I would think the crucial information would be if there had been a significant change in the cosmic ray flux over the last century and how that correlates with a change in cloud coverage or density.
Studies in that area have been inconclusive. The IPCC AR4 summarizes:
There appears to be a small but statistically significant positive correlation between cloud over the UK and galactic cosmic ray flux during 1951 to 2000 (Harrison and Stephenson, 2006). Contrarily, cloud cover anomalies from 1900 to 1987 over the USA do have a signal at 11 years that is anti-phased with the galactic cosmic ray flux (Udelhofen and Cess, 2001)
Here are some more recent studies which also have been unable to show a definitive link:
Calogovic, J., et al. (2010): Sudden cosmic ray decreases: No change of global cloud cover. Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L03802, doi:10.1029/2009GL041327.
Erlykin, A.D., et al (2009a): On the correlation between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover. Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 71, 17-18, 1794-1806, doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2009.06.012.
Kulmala, M., et al. (2010): Atmospheric data over a solar cycle: no connection between galactic cosmic rays and new particle formation. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 10, 1885-1898, doi:10.5194/acp-10-1885-2010.
Pierce, J.R., and P.J. Adams (2009): Can cosmic rays affect cloud condensation nuclei by altering new particle formation rates? Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L09820, doi:10.1029/2009GL037946.
Sloan, T., and A.W. Wolfendale (2008): Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover. Environmental Research Letters, 3, 024001, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/3/2/024001.
Be aware that HSThompson holds many strange opinions about science. For instance,
1) He is insistent that that seasonal temperatures are caused by ocean currents. Most people believe that the seasons are caused by tilt of the Earth with respect to orbit. The side tilted towards the sun experiences summer.
2) He believes that the current warming can be explained by the 0.075 W/m^2 heat from the Earth's core but that the ~2 W/m^2 measured warming from anthropogenic CO2 (or roughly the equivalent energy of 56,000 nuclear bombs every hour) is vanishingly insignificant.
3) He believes that anyone who looks at the following graph and concludes that five temperature reconstructions show the same results is guilty of cherry picking: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/offset:-0.074/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/uah/offset:0.225/plot/rss/offset:0.14
HSThompson's goes into great lengths on each of these topics here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2223172&cid=36382842
2. The Subject's data is documented and available to researchers.
Is #2 even true? My understanding is that the raw data is missing.
That's because you get your information from disinformers. The data has always been available. The methods are described in the paper. The results have been replicated time and time again using different methods. They are very sound. This is how science works. Mann was a pioneer. His methods were improved upon in subsequent analysis - by Mann and others. That the initial study is not perfect is not a sign of misconduct. That his results turned out to be right indicates that he was on the right track.
Didn't you hear the GP? Science is NEVER settled, it is only through questioning and skepticism that science can progress. Oh wait, I see that you repeat the sentiment (with expletives!). I guess you guys are right. We shouldn't trust science, let alone take action on climate change. Although... Heat seeking missiles would behave differently if the greenhouse theory was wrong: http://stsimonsislandgaguys.blogspot.com/2011/05/gilbert-norman-plass.html Bah. Science.
I know what you mean. Newton's and Einstein's theories of gravity always seemed suspect to me. Which is why I always try to remain inside buildings or attached to the ground in some way, just in they are wrong and gravity can change into a repulsive force.
If they each have different theories they can't both be right. That's just common sense. Buckle up. That's what I say.
Science is NEVER settled, it is only through questioning and skepticism that science can progress.
Exactly. This is why we should never trust science, and certainly never take action on climate change.
After the most recent exoneration, Fox was holding out on this NSF report as the last word on the issue: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/06/climate-gate-michael-mann/ They felt that the NSF was the "only independent government organization with the skill and tools to investigate effectively"
Their findings are not surprising. Mann's research has been replicated using different methods time and time again. Here are just a few examples:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n6/full/ngeo865.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/325/5945/1236.abstract
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009JD012603.pdf
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2010GL044771.shtml
http://www.colorado.edu/news/r/9059018f4606597f20dc4965fa9c9104.html
The study you site reaches a similar conclusion by looking at sea ice extent over the last 10000 years. They find that polar ice is much less stable than previously thought. They find that 8000 years ago there was likely much less ice than there is today. This is surprising because although we were at the height of the current interglacial at that time, it was not likely much warmer than it is today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
So the two studies reach the same conclusions using different methods. In fact, we are seeing Arctic ice volume plummet, so this also confirms the conclusions of the papers: http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/05/piomas-april-2011.html
Not quite so. We reached the most recent interglacial maximum about 8000 years ago. We have been on a slow decline since then - until recently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png
There is a bit of a game each year as people speculate how low the arctic sea ice extent will go. The three measures are volume, area, and extent. It looks like we are certainly poised to break the previous record for volume, likely to break it for area, and may possibly break the previous record for extent.
A simple quadratic trend on the available data predicts that we may have an ice free September later this decade: http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/05/piomas-april-2011.html.
Arctic ice minimum volume averaged 16500 km^3 between the late '70s to early 90's. We are now down to below 4500 km^3 and dropping fast.
The arctic ice acts as a buffer against global warming. The sea ice reflects 80% of incoming solar radiation back into space whereas open ocean will absorb about 90%. As the ice melts we could see accelerated global warming.
The good news is that the retreating ice may expose vast new oil resources.
Alright. I think you are being a bit pedantic but if you would like: You believe that seasons are defined by tilt wrt orbit, but you think that seasonal temperatures are caused by ocean currents.
Wow. You argued against my statement "Seasons are caused by tilt wrt orbit. Summer is on the side tilted towards the sun." You argued that seasons are not caused primarily by tilt wrt orbit. Nothing could be clearer than you stating what you do believe to be the cause of the seasons. Instead you keep talking about the definition of seasons vs the temperature at any given latitude. You are not making it at all clear what you believe to be the cause of the seasons. This is not at all like asking you whether you stopped beating your wife. It is truly bizarre that you will not give a straight answer.
Maybe if you would just state your position? You believe that the seasons are cause by...? I don't know why you are so afraid to complete that sentence.
Ok. This conversation is beyond tedious. You have been given ample opportunity to clarify your position. To sum up:
1) Seasons are primarily caused by currents (rather than because the Earth's axis is tilted wrt its orbit with summer being on the side tilted towards the sun).
2) The current warming is more likely to be caused by the ~0.075 W/m^2 heat from the Earth's core but the ~2 W/m^2 warming measured from anthropogenic CO2 is vanishingly insignificant. He seems to think that the earth has been stock piling the 0.075 W/m^2 from the core and is only releasing it now.
3) He was able to conclude (after much hemming and hawing) that the following graph shows an upward temperature trend over the last 100 years: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/offset:-0.074/plot/hadcrut3vgl/plot/uah/offset:0.225/plot/rss/offset:0.14 However he felt that using all data from all reconstructions was a form of cherry picking, and that even though all five reconstructions show the same results (even the ones done by skeptics) the results were likely fabricated.
You can find out about these and more interesting ideas from HSThompson69 at the following link: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2174026&cid=36300426 [slashdot.org]
So previously you had said that geothermal energy was a likely explanation for the current warming and that the impact of CO2 was vanishingly small. Do you still stand by those statements?
Does this have anything to do with what you believe to be the cause of the seasons? If so, then why are you asking me? You can just tell me what you believe to be the cause of the seasons.
I'd rather not get side tracked onto a tangent. Let's talk about your theory of CHGW (Core Heat Global Warming) where core heat is stored up over millennia to be released only now. You originally believed that this was a more likely explanation for the current warming than AGW. Do you still believe this? Can you elaborate on what was keeping the heat from escaping previously and when that changed? Your theory is very interesting and really demonstrates your skill at applying Occam's razor.