Who do you believe on global warming?

[Doc Socks Junior]

Who do I believe in global warming? I believe it doesn't really matter that much. Sea levels rise, sea levels fall. CO2 levels rise, C02 levels fall. Life happens.

[Von Bismarck]

Sure will, see above.

And there are two little ice ages, the first started after the medieval optimum (950-1250) and later there was a period of lower temperatures from the 16th to the 19th century. That it is restricted to the 16th to the 19th century is a pretty recent thingy coined by NASA in 1964 (see Mathess 1939) . None of these were actually ice ages but cold periods.

But if you just want to discuss 16th to 19th century see the article I have pasted on the top. I am not the only one who sees a correlation (even though Katla did its part in Europe at the end of that period).

.

Okay let us look at your so beloved hypothesis (Note its not a theory, because our data doesn't support the claim)

Btw just because you and some other people see a correlation between CO2 and the little ice age doesn't mean its true, does it?

The major problem and flaw in this hypothesis is they rely on a C-12 decrease which could affect the Global temperatures.

We can see from ice core samples its correct that CO2 decreased. But it only decreased by a few ppmv.

It cant account for the cooling because a decrease in a few ppmv would not be able to affect the temperatures at the level we saw at the little ice age.

So by using your logic if we decreased our CO2 level with only a few ppmv our global warming problem would be gone?

Edited March 6, 2012 by BFB

[questionmark]

Okay let us look at your so beloved hypothesis (Note its not a theory, because our data doesn't support the claim)

Btw just because you and some other people see a correlation between CO2 and the little ice age doesn't mean its true, does it?

The major problem and flaw in this hypothesis is they rely on a C-12 decrease which could affect the Global temperatures.

We can see from ice core samples its correct that CO2 decreased. But it only decreased by a few ppmv.

It cant account for the cooling because a decrease in a few ppmv would not be able to affect the temperatures at the level we saw at the little ice age.

So by using your logic if we decreased our CO2 level with only a few ppmv our global warming problem would be gone?

Your question was whether there was a correlation, which there evidently is as one has to be pretty blind to not see temperatures falling when carbon does and vice verse, and yes that in itself does not establish a causality.

Your argument that it is only a few ppm is either a straw man or you are conveniently ignoring that the average historical content of carbon dioxide is 0.0360% . If we additionally consider that the greenhouse gases contribute to a temperature increase on this planet of about 33 degrees Celsius and that carbon dioxide contributes in between 9 and 26% of that (mainly dependent of how much water vapor is in the same air at the time as it is a better greenhouse gas) of those 33 degrees we can say that a few ppm make a big difference.

And it is not a question of a few ppm anymore because nobody in his sane mind says that warming can be stopped, the only choice we have left is at what level we want it to balance out. At the level of the carbon era (10 degrees above now) or at a level where most of the plants and animals that exist now and comprise our existential fundamentals can survive.

And no, humans won't get extinct, it is just that there will be a few billion less until nature has a chance to develop new plants and animals that can take the new conditions once the average temperature is 24 degrees instead of 14 like now.

Edited March 6, 2012 by questionmark

[Little Fish]

Quit the yaddah, data please. And articles by Lord Christopher in the Guardian is not data.

I have not brought into this articles by Lord Christopher Monckton, nor guardian articles, so it is really weird you think it is. have you even looked at the links I provided?

If you want to hold the rest of us to scientific standards the least we can expect is that you do the same.

that's what I am doing. your perception that I am talking about monckton is just in your weird imagination.

it is quite irrelevant what we measure since '84 if we have nothing to compare that too at the point were the temperature accelerated (1850)

nonsense.

besides that they do not say that there is no warming, just that the worst case scenario is less bad than previously expected. And those expectations have been revised downward in 2009.

who is saying there is "no warming"? is this some imaginary strawman skeptic you dream about? does this imaginary skeptic still think we are in the little ice age? again, you are reducing the vital complexities to warming/no warming, your intransigence on this is stunning. this has been explained to you several times in this thread, the point of this thread is to articulate the general skeptical position and show that the skeptics position fits the data far better than the alarmists CAGW.

Besides, as Roy Spencer (no, not on the IPCC) has already pointed out right after the Lindzen Choi paper if you work with statistical tricks you get the data you need.

I doubt very much spencer said that about Lindzen and Choi 2009 (LC09), certainly not in the article you linked. Spencer raised issues about the precession of ERBE that might influence the overall conclusion of LC09 (it didn't).

Since then there are several works demonstrating that Lindzen Choi was less than accurate, among others by John Falluso et al. (not on the IPCC either as far as I remember)

I see another misstatement here, the article you linked is not Falluso et al, it is Trenberth et al, and Trenberth is IPCC lead author, but whatever.

those issues raised (including Spencer's comments) were addressed in Lindzen and Choi 2011 and the issues were shown not to affect the result.

"The present paper responds to the criticism, and corrects the earlier approach where appropriate. The earlier results are not significantly altered, and we show why these results differ from what others like Trenberth et al. (2010),and Dessler (2010) obtain."

"We have corrected the approach of Lindzen and Choi (2009), based on all the criticisms made of the earlier work (Chung et al., 2010; Murphy, 2010; Trenberth et al., 2010). First of all, to improve the statistical significance of the results, we supplemented ERBE data with CERES data, filtered out data noise with 3-month smoothing, objectively chose the intervals based on the smoothed data, and provided confidence intervals for all sensitivity estimates. These constraints helped us to more accurately obtain climate feedback factors than with the original use of monthly data."

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

had you looked at the first link I provided in post#1 and checked the references (xvii), you would have known this.

The relevance of Lindzen Choi has been reduced to the bloggosphere where evidently one just has to scream loud enough to be believed, in the scientific community it is regarded as a piece of creative data handling, of which both constantly accuse the IPC.

well this is just madness.

nurse!!

So, could you bring something else that shows that the earth is not warming and that a climate gas gets less effective the higher its concentration? (Because that is what your diatrebe boils down to).

it has been explained to you several times on this thread the issue is not whether it is warming or not, the issue is the feedbacks resulting from warming.

[questionmark]

I have not brought into this articles by Lord Christopher Monckton, nor guardian articles, so it is really weird you think it is. have you even looked at the links I provided?

that's what I am doing. your perception that I am talking about monckton is just in your weird imagination.

nonsense.

who is saying there is "no warming"? is this some imaginary strawman skeptic you dream about? does this imaginary skeptic still think we are in the little ice age? again, you are reducing the vital complexities to warming/no warming, your intransigence on this is stunning. this has been explained to you several times in this thread, the point of this thread is to articulate the general skeptical position and show that the skeptics position fits the data far better than the alarmists CAGW.

I doubt very much spencer said that about Lindzen and Choi 2009 (LC09), certainly not in the article you linked. Spencer raised issues about the precession of ERBE that might influence the overall conclusion of LC09 (it didn't).

I see another misstatement here, the article you linked is not Falluso et al, it is Trenberth et al, and Trenberth is IPCC lead author, but whatever.

those issues raised (including Spencer's comments) were addressed in Lindzen and Choi 2011 and the issues were shown not to affect the result.

"The present paper responds to the criticism, and corrects the earlier approach where appropriate. The earlier results are not significantly altered, and we show why these results differ from what others like Trenberth et al. (2010),and Dessler (2010) obtain."

"We have corrected the approach of Lindzen and Choi (2009), based on all the criticisms made of the earlier work (Chung et al., 2010; Murphy, 2010; Trenberth et al., 2010). First of all, to improve the statistical significance of the results, we supplemented ERBE data with CERES data, filtered out data noise with 3-month smoothing, objectively chose the intervals based on the smoothed data, and provided confidence intervals for all sensitivity estimates. These constraints helped us to more accurately obtain climate feedback factors than with the original use of monthly data."

http://www-eaps.mit....n-Choi-2011.pdf

had you looked at the first link I provided in post#1 and checked the references (xvii), you would have known this.

well this is just madness.

nurse!!

it has been explained to you several times on this thread the issue is not whether it is warming or not, the issue is the feedbacks resulting from warming.

It does not take away the fundamental critizism of Lindzen Choi, and that is that we do not know the amounts re radiated to space before '84, that oceanic data was confused with land data and that they were using creative statistics as even their own camp confirms. Harping on that dead horse does not get you anywhere. Besides the admission of Spencer that the data is dicey as they could not maintain CERES in its assigned orbit

Since I have been doing similar computations with the CERES satellite data, I decided to do my own analysis of the re-calibrated ERBE data that Lindzen and Choi analyzed. Unfortunately, the ERBE data are rather dicey to analyze because the ERBE satellite orbit repeatedly drifted in and out of the day-night (diurnal) cycle. As a result, the ERBE Team advises that one should only analyze 36-day intervals (or some multiple of 36 days) for data over the deep tropics, while 72-day averages are necessary for the full latitudinal extent of the satellite data (60N to 60S latitude).

.....

It is not clear to me just what the Lindzen and Choi results mean in the context of long-term feedbacks (and thus climate sensitivity). I’ve been sitting on the above analysis for weeks since (1) I am not completely comfortable with their averaging of the satellite data, (2) I get such different results for feedback parameters than they got; and (3) it is not clear whether their analysis of AMIP model output really does relate to feedbacks in those models, especially since my analysis (as yet unpublished) of the more realistic CMIP models gives very different results.

Source

And that was a kind criticism from a climate skeptic, the others were using a hammer. And if you claim that you are not trying to pull a Lord Christopher here, I will give you that maybe not intentionally but harping on this faulty ERBE data set makes you do it.

[Little Fish]

It does not take away the fundamental critizism of Lindzen Choi, and that is that we do not know the amounts re radiated to space before '84

why is it critical to know the data before 1984 with regard to LC09, LC011?

that oceanic data was confused with land data

where was that a criticism?

and that they were using creative statistics as even their own camp confirms.

nonsense.

Harping on that dead horse does not get you anywhere. Besides the admission of Spencer that the data is dicey as they could not maintain CERES in its assigned orbit

where did spencer say that?

And that was a kind criticism from a climate skeptic, the others were using a hammer. And if you claim that you are not trying to pull a Lord Christopher here, I will give you that maybe not intentionally but harping on this faulty ERBE data set makes you do it.

how is ERBE data is faulty that LC09, LC011 did not account for?

[questionmark]

why is it critical to know the data before 1984 with regard to LC09, LC011?

where was that a criticism?

nonsense.

where did spencer say that?

how is ERBE data is faulty that LC09, LC011 did not account for?

Read Spencer, and if that is not enough I can give you links to another dozen similar articles. I am using Spencer because he is a so called skeptic. Because if you did it read you would not have posted the above.

Now, yes, if something gets warmer it radiates more, we all know that. But it certainly does not radiate more such that the radiation itself can countervene the heating process, which is what Lindzen Choi try to imply.

Edited March 6, 2012 by questionmark

[Little Fish]

Read Spencer, and if that is not enough I can give you links to another dozen similar articles. I am using Spencer because he is a so called skeptic. Because if you did it read you would not have posted the above.

I have read spencer, thank you. he does not say what you implied he said. LC011 addressed his comments, and all other crticisms too. the result was not significantly affected .

Now, yes, if something gets warmer it radiates more, we all know that. But it certainly does not radiate more such that the radiation itself can countervene the heating process, which is what Lindzen Choi try to imply.

it is clear you don't understand LC. LC is about feedbacks. maybe you don't understand feedback too.

[questionmark]

I have read spencer, thank you. he does not say what you implied he said. LC011 addressed his comments, and all other crticisms too. the result was not significantly affected .

it is clear you don't understand LC. LC is about feedbacks. maybe you don't understand feedback too.

Just keep on fiddling on that one. And once you are tired of it check reality.

[sean2011]

The truth is global warming is a natural part of a planets life, this is supposed to happen. people are getting alarmed and scared because this has never happened in our lifetime or in the life time when records began but the truth is, there was an ice age, there was a time when all the volcanoe's were erupting. there was a time near the north and south pole where plants were growing there's so much evidence.

global warming may heat us up but the truth be told us in the uk are in for a shock because instead of it getting hotter here it will get alot colder, because one the ice wat is melting cools the ocean down and stop the warm current which heats us were in for a shock.

we don't help it with our emission's but really we aren't hurting it, we only hurt it a small amount with our cars. we breath out more that's what people aren't understanding, cars are a small amount, we breath more carbon out and we all breath so it is just a natural thing.

[Little Fish]

Just keep on fiddling on that one. And once you are tired of it check reality.

so you read LC011 (between posts 154 and 155) in 19 minutes? of course you didn't.

if you had read it prior, then why did you bring up LC09 instead of LC011? I think the truth is you are a priori dismissing research that doesn't fit your viewpoint.

[Little Fish]

Ehm, yes, and that he already points out the fallacies of the Lindzen Choi paper (which is why I took him and not two dozen others that basically say the same thing but are affiliated to the IPCC) is more than enough to show that their eauvre is quite irrelevant to what is happening outside the study of the two gentlemen.

I agree on this one.

hi bfb, do you accept that LC011 addressed Spencer's comments on LC09?

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

[liteness]

They are on the "it happens but not so fast" trip. All I can say about it is that we don't really know how fast it was happening then. How much glaciation was there during the middle ages? We know for certain that Greenland was mostly ice free when the Vikings settled there (around 900 AD) so we can assume that the de-glaciation period was already terminated by then. The highest temperatures were not yet reached and would not be for another 100 years. We are already past those temperatures. So ask me again 100 years after Greenland is ice free if the temperatures raised more then or now.

The comparison stinks. But as far as statistic goes they are making a valid point. The problem is that paper is patient. So are statistics.

I spent some time going over this argument.

I'm sorry to say it is too weak to falsify the theory.

If this information you provide was 100% true, which we can not know for sure btw, it would not make any difference.

there could be other variables that caused the assumed de-glaciation periods. Or a lag, that would be difficult to calculate and speculate upon.

I still think solar science/space science will provide the answer to what is going on in our climate.

Like I said earlier, there is much more to the research than the little ice age and greenland glaciation speculations.

Edited March 6, 2012 by liteness

[Jaguiar]

Why is an earth that is hotter and wetter a bad thing? Those are precisely the two conditions conducive to life.

It won't stop rising until the Earth is uninhabitable like Mars or Venus, that's why!

[liteness]

I spent some time going over this argument.

I'm sorry to say it is too weak to falsify the theory.

If this information you provide was 100% true, which we can not know for sure btw, it would not make any difference.

there could be other variables that caused the assumed de-glaciation periods. Or a lag, that would be difficult to calculate and speculate upon.

I still think solar science/space science will provide the answer to what is going on in our climate.

Like I said earlier, there is much more to the research than the little ice age and greenland glaciation speculations.

Not to mention, this data I posted, and the data you're on about is from the oxygen isotopes from the ice caps.

BFB and I have gone over this form of proxy data in another thread. It is not reliable, and can not provide solid evidence.

So just that, rocks your entire argument.

Edited March 6, 2012 by liteness

[liteness]

It won't stop rising until the Earth is uninhabitable like Mars or Venus, that's why!

congrats on your 100th post

[Little Fish]

It won't stop rising until the Earth is uninhabitable like Mars or Venus, that's why!

go and study the temperature-pressure relationship, then find out the pressure on venus, then find out the temperature difference between day and night on venus, then you can sleep easy.

[Von Bismarck]

Your question was whether there was a correlation, which there evidently is as one has to be pretty blind to not see temperatures falling when carbon does and vice verse, and yes that in itself does not establish a causality.

Your argument that it is only a few ppm is either a straw man or you are conveniently ignoring that the average historical content of carbon dioxide is 0.0360% . If we additionally consider that the greenhouse gases contribute to a temperature increase on this planet of about 33 degrees Celsius and that carbon dioxide contributes in between 9 and 26% of that (mainly dependent of how much water vapor is in the same air at the time as it is a better greenhouse gas) of those 33 degrees we can say that a few ppm make a big difference.

Questionmark instead of copy-pasting from various blogs, you should rewrite the context with your own words so it makes sense. (not saying the hole post is copy past but some parts are, if you want me to point them out i'll be glad to)

But to address your point, the answer would be NO. The numbers you have provided are correct but you can't use it in this context. You would know that if you just had a little bit of knowledge regarding climate science.

Have you ever heard of the term climate sensitivity? If you had, you wouldn't have posted the above.

Do some reading on climate sensitivity, after that come back and explain how a small (only a few ppmv) decrease can account for a temperature diffrence at -0,5 to -1 globally.

[Von Bismarck]

hi bfb, do you accept that LC011 addressed Spencer's comments on LC09?

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

Hi Little Fish.

Yes its correct that Spencer's critisme is adressed in the 2011 paper.

I agree clouds are often "overlooked" but there are some big problems with their 2011 paper.

First their energy budget equation is problematic, second the data they use, third they might be violating the laws of thermodynamics.

But that doesn't mean the paper is not interesting. They make some valid points.

BTW there is no reason to debate with questionmark regarding this paper. He has shown he doesn't know what climate sensitivity and feedbacks are, so he is not capable of understading the paper.

Edited March 7, 2012 by BFB

[Little Fish]

Hi Little Fish.

Yes its correct that Spencer's critisme is adressed in the 2011 paper.

I agree clouds are often "overlooked" but there are some big problems with their 2011 paper.

First their energy budget equation is problematic, second the data they use, third they might be violating the laws of thermodynamics.

I think you are referring to Dessler 2011 (?)

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2011.pdf

roy spencer is disputing that paper

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/10/our-grl-response-to-dessler-takes-shape-and-the-evidence-keeps-mounting/

he is even saying that dessler is misrepresenting him which is kind of a big issue.

I just wanted to put this evidence out there for people to see and understand in advance. It will be indeed part of our response to Dessler 2011, but Danny Braswell and I have so many things to say about that paper, it’s going to take time to address all of the ways in which (we think) Dessler is wrong, misused our model, and misrepresented our position.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/09/spencer-finds-the-big-picture-on-cloud-feedback/

[Von Bismarck]

I think you are referring to Dessler 2011 (?)

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2011.pdf

roy spencer is disputing that paper

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/10/our-grl-response-to-dessler-takes-shape-and-the-evidence-keeps-mounting/

he is even saying that dessler is misrepresenting him which is kind of a big issue.

I just wanted to put this evidence out there for people to see and understand in advance. It will be indeed part of our response to Dessler 2011, but Danny Braswell and I have so many things to say about that paper, it’s going to take time to address all of the ways in which (we think) Dessler is wrong, misused our model, and misrepresented our position.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/10/09/spencer-finds-the-big-picture-on-cloud-feedback/

Interesting read.

But the only point Spencer addressed was the ocean heat transport to cloud TOA flux change ratio.

What about the others?

[questionmark]

Questionmark instead of copy-pasting from various blogs, you should rewrite the context with your own words so it makes sense. (not saying the hole post is copy past but some parts are, if you want me to point them out i'll be glad to)

But to address your point, the answer would be NO. The numbers you have provided are correct but you can't use it in this context. You would know that if you just had a little bit of knowledge regarding climate science.

Have you ever heard of the term climate sensitivity? If you had, you wouldn't have posted the above.

Do some reading on climate sensitivity, after that come back and explain how a small (only a few ppmv) decrease can account for a temperature diffrence at -0,5 to -1 globally.

Keeping burping up the same crap does not change the facts. If we have a greenhouse gas of which the atmosphere contains less than 400 ppm (you seem to have a problem converting percent into ppm as I already posted above the percentile of 0.0360%, having problems in both math and physics is not a good omen for your future as meteorologist, you may not be able to pay back your student loan), and that gas is responsible for 3 to 12 degrees of heat retention in the atmosphere, it is quite normal that a few ppm increase or decrease would cause a large difference. 4ppm of the atmosphere is one percent of the total carbon dioxide. 8 ppm atm more/less CO₂ could account for your +- 0.5, 16 ppm for your +- 1 degree.

And sorry, I don't copy and paste without leaving a reference. And if I leave a reference it is because I am not talking about my opinion but somebody's research which I certainly will not put here as my opinion.

Edited March 7, 2012 by questionmark

[questionmark]

Not to mention, this data I posted, and the data you're on about is from the oxygen isotopes from the ice caps.

BFB and I have gone over this form of proxy data in another thread. It is not reliable, and can not provide solid evidence.

So just that, rocks your entire argument.

Right, and according to you both weather recording and the invention of the thermometer date back to the middle ages... or could it be that "the not so fast reconstruction" is based on that same "faulty ice cap isotopes"?

[Little Fish]

Interesting read.

But the only point Spencer addressed was the ocean heat transport to cloud TOA flux change ratio.

What about the others?

you would need to flesh those points out for me, I had assumed you were talking about Dessler since that is the only published response to LC11 and Spencer 2011 I am aware of. Since Spencer is in the process of publishing his response to Dessler, I can't comment on what I'm not aware of.

[liteness]

Right, and according to you both weather recording and the invention of the thermometer date back to the middle ages... or could it be that "the not so fast reconstruction" is based on that same "faulty ice cap isotopes"?

I'm trying to say, in other words, ice cores and the measurements of their oxygen isotopes is NOT evidence to prove or disprove other theories upon.

Not exactly faulty ice cap isotopes, no... Not saying that. Just saying it's not strong enough evidence.

Do you know how the data is collected from ice cores and how scientists measure 'temperature' using it?

It's a guess, a good guess. But hardly perfect, and barely evidence.

Shouldn't have including BFB. He may not agree =) I was just mentioning BFB, because he was basically the only one to discuss in the thread. And together, peacefully, we came to the conclusion that ice cores, can't provide a great enough source of evidence to support a theory. It's just one piece/part that CAN in correlation with other proxies, support a theory.

SO basically, I was trying to say, poorly I see. That, it's not possible to disprove the research I showed you with the Vikings and Greenland de-glaciation periods.

Especially since, the data required on de-glaciation periods primarily comes from ice core samples, and oxygen isotopes. Not faulty, no, just not evidence.