Climate Change - The Scientific Debate
Discussion
rovermorris999 said:
Another NSS moment
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globa...
Walking the tightrope to keep the warming theory alive and the goals attainable.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globa...
grumbledoak said:
rovermorris999 said:
Another NSS moment
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globa...
Walking the tightrope to keep the warming theory alive and the goals attainable.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globa...
The article comments are interesting.
I guess one would have to read the paper for the new nuance of understanding but to the best of my knowledge CO2 as a fertilizer and growth agent are well accepted principles though the ultimate best results are not solely attributable to fertilizer gas.
Amongst others in recent decades the CO2 Science web site has been pointing this out consistently - and of course it has been vilified by those who wish things to be otherwise.
I guess one would have to read the paper for the new nuance of understanding but to the best of my knowledge CO2 as a fertilizer and growth agent are well accepted principles though the ultimate best results are not solely attributable to fertilizer gas.
Amongst others in recent decades the CO2 Science web site has been pointing this out consistently - and of course it has been vilified by those who wish things to be otherwise.
robinessex said:
The MET office is splashing out on a £97M super computer (actually it isn't) due in 2015. So that means the climate change 'problem' will be solved shortly after, won't it ?
The last one cost 1/3rd of that .... and was thought to be a super powerful tool at the time which was, what, 3 years ago?How powerful must this one be?
Edited by LongQ on Tuesday 28th October 20:16
robinessex said:
The MET office is splashing out on a £97M super computer (actually it isn't) due in 2015. So that means the climate change 'problem' will be solved shortly after, won't it ?
I imagine the local climate might be affected from the amount of power it's likely to consume 
Massive computing power is all very well well, but if you feed the same data into it you simply get incorrect results more quickly.
I've been doing some reading from some skeptic blogs gettign to grips with teh arguments on the pause, and temperature records etc. Came across this article from Roy Spencer on cfact.com...
http://www.cfact.org/2014/10/24/why-2014-wont-be-t...
Origianl post on his site... http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/why-2014-wont-...
Now his point makes perfect sense. Rather than using the thermometer record to track the warming trend use sataellites. Harder to argue about what the trend is when the raw data covers 90% of the globe and with a bit of adjustment for cloud issues can get you better than stuff affected by heat islands etc. Its easier to see how the fudge factor is done too.
So if you would like an unmodified data set, that confirms the pause, shows a slight cooling trend since 1998 - which is a bit daft as starting there you start on a big spike, but I'm indulging the skeptics... you have to either say yes you like this data set or no you don't.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperat...
If you like it - you also have to accept the record goes back to 1979 and a definite warming trend is visible.
Any problems I'm missing with this method? What I think they need to do is work out a trick to merge this into the paleo records rather than relying on thermometer records. I use the word trick conscious of how it was used in the past.
http://www.cfact.org/2014/10/24/why-2014-wont-be-t...
Origianl post on his site... http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/why-2014-wont-...
Now his point makes perfect sense. Rather than using the thermometer record to track the warming trend use sataellites. Harder to argue about what the trend is when the raw data covers 90% of the globe and with a bit of adjustment for cloud issues can get you better than stuff affected by heat islands etc. Its easier to see how the fudge factor is done too.
So if you would like an unmodified data set, that confirms the pause, shows a slight cooling trend since 1998 - which is a bit daft as starting there you start on a big spike, but I'm indulging the skeptics... you have to either say yes you like this data set or no you don't.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperat...
If you like it - you also have to accept the record goes back to 1979 and a definite warming trend is visible.
Any problems I'm missing with this method? What I think they need to do is work out a trick to merge this into the paleo records rather than relying on thermometer records. I use the word trick conscious of how it was used in the past.
TransverseTight][... said:
you have to either say yes you like this data set or no you don't.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperat...
If you like it - you also have to accept the record goes back to 1979 and a definite warming trend is visible.
Any problems I'm missing with this method?
I have very little problem with that dataset, but I do have a problem with your conclusion that "a definite warming trend is visible".http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperat...
If you like it - you also have to accept the record goes back to 1979 and a definite warming trend is visible.
Any problems I'm missing with this method?
Given that you accept it shows a slight cooling since 1998 (I agree with your criticism of that year btw), all you can say is that dataset showed warming from 1979 until 1998, but has not shown continued waming since then.
By far he biggest mistake alarists make is assuming that a previous trend, on any timescale, must continue / be continuing.
It's a bit like noticing it's getting warmer from late feb through July and predicting that by christmas we'll all be cooking with the turkeys. We know that won't happen because we understand the basic drivers of the seasons, but we have no idea what we don't know about the long term drivers of climate.
So far, CO2 is an exceedingly poor fit seeing as, since we've been burning significant fosil fuels, the world has warmed, and cooled, and stayed much the same for decades at a time, all while the (supposed) driver has been continually increasing.
It's like turning up the gas on your cooker and finding that your kettle started to warm, then got colder, then stabilised. Personally, at that point, I'd be looking for a new cooker rather than trying to explain how all the heat must have gone into the garden pond for a while!
Variomatic said:
It's like turning up the gas on your cooker and finding that your kettle started to warm, then got colder, then stabilised. Personally, at that point, I'd be looking for a new cooker rather than trying to explain how all the heat must have gone into the garden pond for a while!
Variomatic said:
I have very little problem with that dataset, but I do have a problem with your conclusion that "a definite warming trend is visible".
Given that you accept it shows a slight cooling since 1998 (I agree with your criticism of that year btw), all you can say is that dataset showed warming from 1979 until 1998, but has not shown continued waming since then.
By far he biggest mistake alarists make is assuming that a previous trend, on any timescale, must continue / be continuing.
It's a bit like noticing it's getting warmer from late feb through July and predicting that by christmas we'll all be cooking with the turkeys. We know that won't happen because we understand the basic drivers of the seasons, but we have no idea what we don't know about the long term drivers of climate.
So far, CO2 is an exceedingly poor fit seeing as, since we've been burning significant fosil fuels, the world has warmed, and cooled, and stayed much the same for decades at a time, all while the (supposed) driver has been continually increasing.
It's like turning up the gas on your cooker and finding that your kettle started to warm, then got colder, then stabilised. Personally, at that point, I'd be looking for a new cooker rather than trying to explain how all the heat must have gone into the garden pond for a while!
LOL. If you subsitite indoor swimming swimming pool for that kettle we might be able to explain it better... as the cooker isn't the only thing affecting the temperataure. CO2 isn't a big hitter like an overn in a kitchen heatign a kettle, it's more like leaving a 60W non energy saver on. Dependign on wha tthe outdoor eather is like, would potentially raise the indoor temperature. Given that you accept it shows a slight cooling since 1998 (I agree with your criticism of that year btw), all you can say is that dataset showed warming from 1979 until 1998, but has not shown continued waming since then.
By far he biggest mistake alarists make is assuming that a previous trend, on any timescale, must continue / be continuing.
It's a bit like noticing it's getting warmer from late feb through July and predicting that by christmas we'll all be cooking with the turkeys. We know that won't happen because we understand the basic drivers of the seasons, but we have no idea what we don't know about the long term drivers of climate.
So far, CO2 is an exceedingly poor fit seeing as, since we've been burning significant fosil fuels, the world has warmed, and cooled, and stayed much the same for decades at a time, all while the (supposed) driver has been continually increasing.
It's like turning up the gas on your cooker and finding that your kettle started to warm, then got colder, then stabilised. Personally, at that point, I'd be looking for a new cooker rather than trying to explain how all the heat must have gone into the garden pond for a while!
Whatever - analogies are useless.
What I think is the key point, the satellite measurements are probably the best way to track the global temperatue, even if they don't have the earth warming as fast as the warmists would like. Some work to be done on the poles, but I'm not sure why it's so hard to get a sateelite in non geo orbit to pass over say 1 or 2 times a day? Have to check if the temp satellites are geostationary. But don't see why they would be.
This still leaves the big hole under the sea surface that needs a better way of measuring. Call me sensible, but trying to measure seas expansion on a sub millimtre scale when the sea is never acutally flat might prove a bit tricky. Then again I have no idea how accurate satellite radar is. 20 years ago if you had said you'll carry a device in your pocket than can locate you on the planet to withing a couple of meters I'd have laughed. Especially if you said you could overlay sattelite images and photos of the whole street that you can "drive" through.
TransverseTight said:
Whatever - analogies are useless.
What I think is the key point, the satellite measurements are probably the best way to track the global temperatue, even if they don't have the earth warming as fast as the warmists would like. Some work to be done on the poles, but I'm not sure why it's so hard to get a sateelite in non geo orbit to pass over say 1 or 2 times a day? Have to check if the temp satellites are geostationary. But don't see why they would be.
This still leaves the big hole under the sea surface that needs a better way of measuring. Call me sensible, but trying to measure seas expansion on a sub millimtre scale when the sea is never acutally flat might prove a bit tricky. Then again I have no idea how accurate satellite radar is. 20 years ago if you had said you'll carry a device in your pocket than can locate you on the planet to withing a couple of meters I'd have laughed. Especially if you said you could overlay sattelite images and photos of the whole street that you can "drive" through.
The one problem with any measurement is clouds, those funny things that make it warmer at night and make it colder during the day, no way has been found of modeling them, so what tends to happen is they get ignored, a major influence on the temperature of the earth, one that the effects can be predicted unlike CO2 that is just a theory, I wonder how well satellites cope with clouds of different density. What I think is the key point, the satellite measurements are probably the best way to track the global temperatue, even if they don't have the earth warming as fast as the warmists would like. Some work to be done on the poles, but I'm not sure why it's so hard to get a sateelite in non geo orbit to pass over say 1 or 2 times a day? Have to check if the temp satellites are geostationary. But don't see why they would be.
This still leaves the big hole under the sea surface that needs a better way of measuring. Call me sensible, but trying to measure seas expansion on a sub millimtre scale when the sea is never acutally flat might prove a bit tricky. Then again I have no idea how accurate satellite radar is. 20 years ago if you had said you'll carry a device in your pocket than can locate you on the planet to withing a couple of meters I'd have laughed. Especially if you said you could overlay sattelite images and photos of the whole street that you can "drive" through.
Then we get to calibration of the equipment that is near on impossible, so making the results suspect, it may be the best we have but that doesn't mean its accurate.
TransverseTight said:
LOL. If you subsitite indoor swimming swimming pool for that kettle we might be able to explain it better... as the cooker isn't the only thing affecting the temperataure. CO2Some work to be done on the poles, but I'm not sure why it's so hard to get a sateelite in non geo orbit to pass over say 1 or 2 times a day? Have to check if the temp satellites are geostationary. But don't see why they would be.
This still leaves the big hole under the sea surface that needs a better way of measuring. Call me sensible, but trying to measure seas expansion on a sub millimtre scale when the sea is never acutally flat might prove a bit tricky. Then again I have no idea how accurate satellite radar is. 20 years ago if you had said you'll carry a device in your pocket than can locate you on the planet to withing a couple of meters I'd have laughed. Especially if you said you could overlay sattelite images and photos of the whole street that you can "drive" through.
Satellite orbits come in many flavours. Envisat was one such beast doing a polar orbit. Geostationary Just another type of orbit. Think Envisat completed an orbit every 90 mins or something.This still leaves the big hole under the sea surface that needs a better way of measuring. Call me sensible, but trying to measure seas expansion on a sub millimtre scale when the sea is never acutally flat might prove a bit tricky. Then again I have no idea how accurate satellite radar is. 20 years ago if you had said you'll carry a device in your pocket than can locate you on the planet to withing a couple of meters I'd have laughed. Especially if you said you could overlay sattelite images and photos of the whole street that you can "drive" through.
TransverseTight said:
So if you would like an unmodified data set, that confirms the pause, shows a slight cooling trend since 1998 - which is a bit daft as starting there you start on a big spike, but I'm indulging the skeptics... you have to either say yes you like this data set or no you don't.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperat...
If you like it - you also have to accept the record goes back to 1979 and a definite warming trend is visible.
Any problems I'm missing with this method? What I think they need to do is work out a trick to merge this into the paleo records rather than relying on thermometer records.
34 years is pretty short to be making any long term statements on whether the earth is warming or not, and how long it may continue - Not really a great correlation with the rise in CO2 either, never mind finding causation.http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperat...
If you like it - you also have to accept the record goes back to 1979 and a definite warming trend is visible.
Any problems I'm missing with this method? What I think they need to do is work out a trick to merge this into the paleo records rather than relying on thermometer records.
So, the best data set we have tells us very little?
mund7362 said:
Moonhawk said:
Perhaps sceptics are prepared to take a longer term and less reactionary standpoint - instead of looking at a very small data set over a very short period of time (in historic and geological terms) and having a knee-jerk reaction. For example - looking at temperatures over a longer period - we see that the earth has undergone warming and cooling periods apparently unconnected with human industrial activity.
What's the source for this graph?durbster said:
What's the source for this graph?
I believe it's based on data from this paperhttp://www.wsl.ch/fe/landschaftsdynamik/dendroclim...
The red and green lines are my own annotations to help illustrate the point
TransverseTight said:
I've been doing some reading from some skeptic blogs gettign to grips with teh arguments on the pause, and temperature records etc. Came across this article from Roy Spencer on cfact.com...
http://www.cfact.org/2014/10/24/why-2014-wont-be-t...
Origianl post on his site... http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/why-2014-wont-...
Now his point makes perfect sense. Rather than using the thermometer record to track the warming trend use sataellites. Harder to argue about what the trend is when the raw data covers 90% of the globe and with a bit of adjustment for cloud issues can get you better than stuff affected by heat islands etc. Its easier to see how the fudge factor is done too.
So if you would like an unmodified data set, that confirms the pause, shows a slight cooling trend since 1998 - which is a bit daft as starting there you start on a big spike, but I'm indulging the skeptics... you have to either say yes you like this data set or no you don't.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperat...
If you like it - you also have to accept the record goes back to 1979 and a definite warming trend is visible.
Any problems I'm missing with this method? What I think they need to do is work out a trick to merge this into the paleo records rather than relying on thermometer records. I use the word trick conscious of how it was used in the past.
A few comments:http://www.cfact.org/2014/10/24/why-2014-wont-be-t...
Origianl post on his site... http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/10/why-2014-wont-...
Now his point makes perfect sense. Rather than using the thermometer record to track the warming trend use sataellites. Harder to argue about what the trend is when the raw data covers 90% of the globe and with a bit of adjustment for cloud issues can get you better than stuff affected by heat islands etc. Its easier to see how the fudge factor is done too.
So if you would like an unmodified data set, that confirms the pause, shows a slight cooling trend since 1998 - which is a bit daft as starting there you start on a big spike, but I'm indulging the skeptics... you have to either say yes you like this data set or no you don't.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperat...
If you like it - you also have to accept the record goes back to 1979 and a definite warming trend is visible.
Any problems I'm missing with this method? What I think they need to do is work out a trick to merge this into the paleo records rather than relying on thermometer records. I use the word trick conscious of how it was used in the past.
Roy Spencer says his product is best - surprise surprise
UAH has been modified many times.
UAH shows a positive trend since 1998 not negative (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2015/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2015/trend)
Why not use them all? After all they measure different things, and actually satellites aren't very good at measuring surface temperatures where we all live so apples to apples and all that.
Comparing the data (since 79) there's not much difference between the satellite and surface measurement trends. Which kind of reminds of when the Best temperature series was released with claims of superior methods employed etc but after all that effort hardly any change to the end result.
plunker said:
A few comments:
Roy Spencer says his product is best - surprise surprise
UAH has been modified many times.
UAH shows a positive trend since 1998 not negative (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2015/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2015/trend)
Why not use them all? After all they measure different things, and actually satellites aren't very good at measuring surface temperatures where we all live so apples to apples and all that.
Comparing the data (since 79) there's not much difference between the satellite and surface measurement trends. Which kind of reminds of when the Best temperature series was released with claims of superior methods employed etc but after all that effort hardly any change to the end result.
and yet no correlation with CO2 emissions.... Given the dominance of evaporation and convection at surface levels for energy transfer - why would anyone ever expect to see a signal in the near surface mean kinetic energy (temperature) due to a slight change in CO2 ( in the absolute % of atmospheric gases measure)? Roy Spencer says his product is best - surprise surprise
UAH has been modified many times.
UAH shows a positive trend since 1998 not negative (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2015/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2015/trend)
Why not use them all? After all they measure different things, and actually satellites aren't very good at measuring surface temperatures where we all live so apples to apples and all that.
Comparing the data (since 79) there's not much difference between the satellite and surface measurement trends. Which kind of reminds of when the Best temperature series was released with claims of superior methods employed etc but after all that effort hardly any change to the end result.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff