In the End

[Pandora]

Thanks for the story, Drakona, really enjoyed that!

It should give you some pause if you're inclined to trust a result simply because it's published in a prestigious journal, or to trust the opinion of a scientist simply because he's a scientist. But it doesn't mean you should actively distrust those things, either. Nothing matters except whether the arguments are good and whether the data is good. There is no epistemic substitute for reading and critiquing core arguments.

Agreed. It is clear that peer review is necessary for study to be taken seriously, but it is, of course, not sufficient. You also need independent replication, and how the data fit into a broader framework. You also need to consider how other scientists are judging the work. But - coming back to the original topic of the thread - the main findings are very well replicated; to distrust them requires the assumption of a massive worldwide conspiracy.

[Pandora]

Yet aren't there numerous examples of just that, where a scientist had some contrary datum or observation and just sat on it because they thought it must be wrong - this is just what confirmation bias is.

Of course, you need guts as well. But there are multiple ways to introduce a new and divergent finding, you don't need - and probably shouldn't proclaim - that your study kills all the the previous research. You can formulate that much more cautiously. Scientists will still take note, and try to replicate or disprove the work. After, this you can go out and start challenging.

I had this recently, where another group tried to shoot down one of my findings. Thankfully, I got it as a reviewer, and found a glaring problem in their experiment. They now did it again, fixing this error, and find exactly what I did. That's just how it goes --- but I was very freaked out when I read their paper the first time, not being replicated can be really damaging for the reputation of a young researcher.

So, if you find something unuasual, you need to make sure that you covered all the bases. Try to replicate it yourself, and really look for errors. Then publish and see what happens.

[Flatlander]

50 reasons why global warming isn't natural

[woodchip]

Woody, what about this study? Again, it just shows that ONE REGION had stronger glacier retreat now than today. You're mistaking again phenomena on a global and local level --- unless there is a more subtle point in there that you are trying to make.

No Pandora the real point (subtle or not) is, while the data has always been there, the researchers were just now discovering it. One can only wonder how much other data is out there that is not being correlated properly.

While the Swiss alpine glacial data is indeed localized, would the same solar radiation increase also affect other glaciers around the world? Was the increased radiation a result of solar flaring or was it because the Swiss weather back then was clearer and dryer?

As with my underwater vulcanism examples, has anyone done even a rough estimate how much oceanic warming is caused by heat generated along the mid-atlantic or mid-pacific faults? How much molecular diffusion of CO2 from these same hot spots into the atmosphere occurs? Any studies?

[Pandora]

Woody, sorry for the long absence. Here's what any alternative theory of global warming has to explain. I mentioned this before, but I am not sure it got through.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do- ... rming.html

So,
a) the world is warming, but nevertheless emits *less* radiation into space at the greenhouse gas frequency range than before the warming started.
b) At the same time, there is increased downwards radiation onto the surface, again at the frequency range of greenhouse gases.

I don't see how undersea volcanoes could account for any of this. But of course, you can have a look. Any recent increase should be detectable in the chemical characteristics of the seas.

[Kilarin]

The wikipedia era is an incredible one, with an enormous amount of data available and vast possibilities for growth.

BUT, it can also be terrifying. A few people, or even just one person, can re-write history, remake science.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blog ... 70719.aspx

This comes from a well known global warming skeptic, so its not starting from an unbiased point of view. BUT, I think the terrifying point here is still valid. It really looks likely that William Connolley DID abuse wikipedia in order to cover up legitimate science that he disapproved of. But even if it turns out that he didn't, the scenario is still possible. A few, or one person, who can work themselves into an administrators position at wikipedia has tremendous power over what science and history the public, and even, to a degree, other scientist will see. It's a risk for abuse that seems to be perhaps even MORE dangerous than the frightening story Drakona linked to above.

[Spidey]

Anyone who uses Wikipedia for anything really important is…well…stupid.

[Kilarin]

Anyone who uses Wikipedia for anything really important is…well…stupid.

I don't disagree at all. Unfortunately, its still a major tool for setting opinion, which effects policy, even among scientist who should know better.

[woodchip]

Pandora, this is one of the more telling reasons why much more study needs to be done on the CO2 increase:

\"ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.\"

\"To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

The research is published in Geophysical Research Letters.\"

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 184221.htm

So why are the climate warmers saying CO2 has been steadily increasing?

edit add:

Profile of Wolfgang Knorr so we know he is not just some blogger:

http://www.gly.bris.ac.uk/people/xwk.html

[Pandora]

So why are the climate warmers saying CO2 has been steadily increasing?

because it has. you are misunderstanding what the paper says. What it says is that of the total emissions, the percentage that goes into the atmosphere is not increasing. It has stayed at roughly 43%.

This argues, at best, against the idea that the ocean's carbon sink capacity is decreasing (in contrast to what other studies have found).

Happy new year Woody and everybody else!

[woodchip]

Happy new year to you to Pandora.

You have me a bit confused. If % of atmospheric CO2 is staying constant, how can CO2 be increasing at the same time? Is the atmospheric envelope increasing in size thus allowing a increase in overall CO2 amount while still maintaining the same %? Or do you mean something else?

[Pandora]

sorry, I wasn't clear in the above post. they are not saying that % of athmoshperic CO2 is staying constant, they are saying that the % of the emissions that goes into the athmosphere stays constant.

assume (made up numbers)
1950: 100 ppm of CO2 emitted, 43 ppm go into the athmoshpere
2000: 1000 ppm of CO2, emitted, 430 go into the athmosphere.

So in both cases, the airborne fraction stays constant (43%), but still there is an incredible increase of CO2 in the athmosphere from 1950 to 2000.

[woodchip]

Ummm...are you trying to perform a jedi mind trick? From my post:

\"he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years\"

I read this as the % in the air and not as a % of emmisions even tho CO2 emmisions have increased. The reason why the author states:

\"Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems\"

So tell how me you are concluding the gist of the researchers work can be construed as a % of emissions and not a % of what is airborn?

[Pandora]

well, that is how the \"airborne fraction\" is defined: from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_fraction

The airborne fraction is a scaling factor defined as the ratio of the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 to the CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources/

note that it is indeed the ratio to CO2 emissions.

see also from Watts up with that:

Note: It is not that the total atmospheric burden of CO2 has not been increasing over time, but that of the total CO2 released into the atmosphere each year by human activities, about 45% remains in the atmosphere while the other 55% is taken up by various natural processes—and these percentages have not changed during the past 150 years)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/10/b ... y-says-no/

edit: here's the critical figure from the paper:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... igure1.jpg
solid line: co2 emissions
dotted line: co2 in the atmosphere
note that co2 in athmosphere stays proportional to the c02 emissions over history at 46% (not 43% as I said above). So no evidence from this study that the capacity of land and ocean to sequester carbon is decreasing. This is all the study is saying.

[woodchip]

OK Pandora, I read your links about airborn fraction and I understand it a bit better. However...what is interesting is even as CO2 emissions increase, the percentage that goes into the atmosphere stays the same. So where are the increased amounts NOT going into the atmosphere, going to? What is absorbing it in light of terrestrial CO2 sinks like forests being cut down?

Also I have to wonder at your 2009 being the warmest comment:

\"According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.\"

Additionally we have climate warming promoters saying we may have 20-30 years of cooling ahead of us, primarily due to:

\"Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.\"

\"Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.\"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -here.html

It would seem as more information comes in, the more the standard climate model looks to be in need of repair. Perhaps my idea of looking along the mid oceanic ridges and vulcanism may have some merit unless the deep ocean oscillations are caused by some other effect.

[Pandora]

\"According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.\"

doesn't look so different to me:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/imag ... series.png
also an important thing that is always obscured by the deniers is the difference between ice extent and volume. More extent doesn't help much when it is dramatically thinner.

off to bed now, will post more in the next days...

[Spidey]

The Deniers, heh I like that, it sounds like some 1960s British Science Fiction Drama…Coming up next…The Deniers…Brought to you by The Ford Motor Co, in Technicolor.

I was reading somewhere that a study was done tracing back the origins of the global warming theory, and it turned out that the Atomic Energy Advocate groups had a major hand in it. (no, I forget where I read it)

Now wouldn’t that be the epitome of irony…the left duped into campaigning a cause from their arch enemies.

I mean…that would be a real pisser!

[woodchip]

also an important thing that is always obscured by the deniers is the difference between ice extent and volume. More extent doesn't help much when it is dramatically thinner.

Only problem with that logic is the promoters have been using the disappearing ice as "proof" of their claims. Now when the area is increasing, the warmers are saying, well, it's not thick ice. So if in a couple of years the cooling trend continues, what will the warmers excuse be when the ice is thick? And just what is the ice thickness average over the last 150 years?

[Duper]

The Deniers, heh I like that, it sounds liks some 1960s British Science Fiction Drama…Coming up next…The Deniers…Brought to you by The Ford Motor Co, in Technicolor.

I was reading somewhere that a study was done tracing back the origins of the global warming theory, and it turned out that the Atomic Energy Advocate groups had a major hand in it. (no, I forget where I read it)

Now wouldn’t that be the epitome of irony…the left duped into campaigning a cause from their arch enemies.

I mean…that would be a real pisser!

The Deniers

Good book. Complete bib.

[Pandora]

The Deniers, heh I like that, it sounds like some 1960s British Science Fiction Drama…Coming up next…The Deniers…Brought to you by The Ford Motor Co, in Technicolor.

Well, the term 'alarmist' seems to be quite accepted, figured I could use 'denier' as well. Just goes to show...

I was reading somewhere that a study was done tracing back the origins of the global warming theory, and it turned out that the Atomic Energy Advocate groups had a major hand in it. (no, I forget where I read it)

Heh. Atomic Energy Advocates in 1896?
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm

[AlphaDoG]

The Deniers, heh I like that, it sounds like some 1960s British Science Fiction Drama…Coming up next…The Deniers…Brought to you by The Ford Motor Co, in Technicolor.

I was reading somewhere that a study was done tracing back the origins of the global warming theory, and it turned out that the Atomic Energy Advocate groups had a major hand in it. (no, I forget where I read it)

Now wouldn’t that be the epitome of irony…the left duped into campaigning a cause from their arch enemies.

I mean…that would be a real pisser!

That would be General Motors being the sponsor. Ford did NOT take Climate Change money!

[Pandora]

"According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this."

So I had a look at this claim. Turns out that arctic summer ice 2009 is the third lowest on record. The alleged increase only appears when you compare with a cherry picked year with extremely little ice (2007), the same tactic deniers pick 1998 for their comparisons for global surface temperatures. (and, Spidey, for such dishonest comparisons I use the term 'denier' on purpose).

[Pandora]

Only problem with that logic is the promoters have been using the disappearing ice as "proof" of their claims. Now when the area is increasing, the warmers are saying, well, it's not thick ice. So if in a couple of years the cooling trend continues, what will the warmers excuse be when the ice is thick? And just what is the ice thickness average over the last 150 years?

Woody, again, you are mixing up things. Sea ice extent is more easily measurable of course, and is usually a good proxy for ice mass. For thickness/volume you need more expensive submarine/sattelite data. But I wouldn't think that anyone would reasonably suggest that ice extent is more important than volume, ever, when total ice loss is in question.

See ice extent is also important for albedo, this is why it is important for climate science. Less ice extent (here volume is not important), so less sunlight is reflected back into space. This means that warming will increase. [edit: this is one of the positive feedback mechanisms climate scientists are warning about]

[Pandora]

Here's Latif's response to the Daily Mail article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ojib-latif

and here's a graph of the 'cooling' his model predicts.



[oops - sorry, don't know how to make this smaller --- edit: fixed]

[Pandora]

and as an add-on. Matif speaks of a cooling of the SURFACE TEMPERATURES. He is not talking about the TOTAL energy budget of the earth, which would also include the deep oceans. In fact, his models still assume that the total energy budget will be increasing, but that this is overlaid by natural variability of the surface temperatures (i.e. ENSO cycles).

If you have understood Trenberth's 'travesty' remark and the associated paper, then this should be clear.

[AlphaDoG]

Doesn't white reflect solar radiation? There's a lot of solar radiation currently headed back to space, only to be trapped by Co2, thus it's gonna get HELLA warm.

Here's the current map of snow coverage in the US.

http://www.wunderground.com/US/Region/U ... Depth.html

Now consider that most of northern Europe and Asia are also getting a comparable coverage of snowfall.

I suspect the icecaps will be gone, oh, 1st of next week.

[Insurrectionist]

there is no end.

[Lothar]

(and, Spidey, for such dishonest comparisons I use the term 'denier' on purpose).

This has been one of the most frustrating things about the whole discussion... watching otherwise perfectly reputable scientists who have the data on their side resort to name-calling and emotional appeals. Calling people "deniers" makes you and many other GW proponents look bush league.

[Pandora]

I don't agree, Lothar. I am very happy to use the word sceptic for honest disagreements, and/or misunderstandings. And I definately do this when talking to people here on the board. But for obviously dishonest claims the term 'denier' is much more appropriate (for instance, I hope it is clear that in the post above, the word 'denier' was NOT aimed at woodchip, but to the media spinmeisters of these comparisons).

You have to call a spade a spade.

edit: and I also find it weird that you find it frustrating that scientists dare to use the word 'denier', but do not object to the other side calling reputable scientists 'frauds'.

[Pandora]

Doesn't white reflect solar radiation? There's a lot of solar radiation currently headed back to space, only to be trapped by Co2, thus it's gonna get HELLA warm.

You have it backwards, Alphadog. Less snow means that sunlight is not reflected anyways, but stays in the athmosphere and leads to warming. If there is lots of snow, the sunlight has at least the chance to escape into space.

So more ice entent enhances cooling not warming effects.

[woodchip]

"According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this."

So I had a look at this claim. Turns out that arctic summer ice 2009 is the third lowest on record. The alleged increase only appears when you compare with a cherry picked year with extremely little ice (2007), the same tactic deniers pick 1998 for their comparisons for global surface temperatures. (and, Spidey, for such dishonest comparisons I use the term 'denier' on purpose).

However you slice it, there was a 26% increase and not a further decrease. One has to have a baseline to compare with to see if GW is advancing, halting or reversing. It will take more than a few years to see if a reversal trend has started so time will tell.

[woodchip]

Only problem with that logic is the promoters have been using the disappearing ice as "proof" of their claims. Now when the area is increasing, the warmers are saying, well, it's not thick ice. So if in a couple of years the cooling trend continues, what will the warmers excuse be when the ice is thick? And just what is the ice thickness average over the last 150 years?

Woody, again, you are mixing up things. Sea ice extent is more easily measurable of course, and is usually a good proxy for ice mass. For thickness/volume you need more expensive submarine/sattelite data. But I wouldn't think that anyone would reasonably suggest that ice extent is more important than volume, ever, when total ice loss is in question.

See ice extent is also important for albedo, this is why it is important for climate science. Less ice extent (here volume is not important), so less sunlight is reflected back into space. This means that warming will increase. [edit: this is one of the positive feedback mechanisms climate scientists are warning about]

And with the 26% increase in extent, there will be some amount more albedo and thus a cooling effect, however slight it may be.

[woodchip]

Here's Latif's response to the Daily Mail article.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 ... ojib-latif

Latif:
"Latif said his research suggested that up to half the warming seen over the 20th century was down to this natural ocean effect, but said that was consistent with the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "No climate specialist would ever say that 100% of the warming we have seen is down to greenhouse gas emissions."

So if "Up to half" of the warming was due to natural oceanic effects, then the question is begged, would we be having a Global Warming discussion today if those effects did not occur? Or would the 1960's Ice Age apocalypts hold sway?

[Pandora]

So if "Up to half" of the warming was due to natural oceanic effects, then the question is begged, would we be having a Global Warming discussion today if those effects did not occur? Or would the 1960's Ice Age apocalypts hold sway?

two things:

(1) AFAIK, not many climate scientits agree with his model, showing that it doesn't perform very well even when hindcasting temperature history that we know (the last 100 years), and predicts cooling events there that did not happen.

(2) If you want to get rid of ocean variability of the recent warming, then you have to do the same for the time before that, otherwise you're comparing apples with oranges. If you do this, the warming effect seems to be even clearer (if reduced in size, but after all, all wiggles get reduced in size).

For a recent simple attempt, see here, for example.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/ ... #more-2150

[Will Robinson]

I read recently that the very same science and data that shows the increase in temp over the last 100 years also supports the theory that this is the tail end of a longer trend that shows temp rising over a 10,000 year period and it is proposed that we are simply seeing the end of the 10,000 year cycle and soon we will be in the decline phase of the cycle.
They also said that although man can contribute to some of the recent increase in temp levels he has no ability to stop the larger cycle so any warming we may have added to the upward movement is temporary and will be insignificant and wiped out by the coming downward trend in temps. Sort of calls into question the whole delicate balance thing if temps were going to hit a certain level regardless of how many credits we buy from algore or how many countries magically met KYOTO target levels of emissions.

This may be a case of smoke 'em while you've got 'em boys because summers almost over.....

[Pandora]

Will, these cycles are not magical, they have physical causes and they are quite well understood. They depend on the changes in the earths angle/orbit with respect to the sun. These changes are not happening yet. I think the declining phase will start in several 1000 years or so. So in a sense, you are right of course, but on our time scale these cycles are simply not relevant.

[Will Robinson]

Will, these cycles are not magical, they have physical causes and they are quite well understood. They depend on the changes in the earths angle/orbit with respect to the sun. These changes are not happening yet. I think the declining phase will start in several 1000 years or so. So in a sense, you are right of course, but on our time scale these cycles are simply not relevant.

I think they are relevant when you take it in context of a political authority trying to alter our lifestyle and economy in a detrimental way all in the name of 'saving the planet' when the planet is heating up and cooling down on it's own schedule in spite of mans worst and proposed best action! Add into it that their proposed solutions, even if they are miraculously successful, would only reduce mans impact by a small percentage and a mere percentage of an already insignificant percentage of the total cause of warming does not a planet save!!

But it sure would empower the proposed new world government entity, transfer wealth from the producers to the warlords, the bumbling and fascist/fundamentalist 3rd worlders as well as further erode our freedoms here in the west!

[Lothar]

edit: and I also find it weird that you find it frustrating that scientists dare to use the word 'denier', but do not object to the other side calling reputable scientists 'frauds'.

watching otherwise perfectly reputable scientists who have the data on their side resort to name-calling and emotional appeals.

Put another way, I find it frustrating to see them stoop to the level of the worst of their opponents, and thereby draw attention away from the facts and data. (The worst of the other side is, of course, perfectly happy to draw attention away from the facts and data, so them calling people "frauds" is not particularly surprising or disappointing.)

[Pandora]

Lothar, I agree with this, of course. Nevertheless, dishonesty should be labelled as such, and not dressed up as skepticism --- don't you agree with this?

[Pandora]

I think they are relevant when you take it in context of a political authority trying to alter our lifestyle and economy in a detrimental way all in the name of 'saving the planet' when the planet is heating up and cooling down on it's own schedule in spite of mans worst and proposed best action!

Why does politics make cooling that will happen in several thousand years more relevant? I don't get it.