Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

[Upton Sinclair]

So because Muller is now tainted as being ideologically unlcean then his results can be dismissed? Is that what I'm hearing here, cancat?

 

[cancat]

So because Muller is now tainted as being ideologically unlcean then his results can be dismissed? Is that what I'm hearing here, cancat?

Muller chose to release the results of the study in The New York Times, rather than through the traditional process of submitting the information to a science journal for peer review. He's grandstanding.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Muller chose to release the results of the study in The New York Times, rather than through the traditional process of submitting the information to a science journal for peer review. He's grandstanding.

True. But it's not really answering my question.

Anyway, enough of Muller the showman, BEST was always an irrelevant distraction, back to the real peer reviewed research. Sadly for Dan, still nothing from his thousands of scientists with their "real life data from satellites, 28 million weather balloon, 6000 boreholes and 3000 Ocean Buoys" you'd think they'd be publishing reams of research but there's nothing to be seen!

http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/

• Arctic Clouds and Surface Radiation: Arctic Clouds and Surface Radiation – a critical comparison of satellite retrievals and the ERA-Interim reanalysis – Zygmuntowska et al. (2012)
• Permafrost distribution in the European Alps: Permafrost distribution in the European Alps: calculation and evaluation of an index map and summary statistics – Boeckli et al. (2012)
• Small part of Arctic sea ice extent decline has been due to Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation: Sources of multi-decadal variability in Arctic sea ice extent – Day et al. (2012)
• The effect of climate change and ocean acidification on seagrasses and marine macroalgae: Climate Change and Ocean AcidificationEffects on Seagrasses and Marine Macroalgae – Koch et al. (2012)
• How vegetation in Switzerland responded to rapid warming in the past?: Vegetation responses to rapid warming and to minor climatic fluctuations during the Late-Glacial Interstadial (GI-1) at Gerzensee (Switzerland) – Ammann et al. (2012)
• Anthropogenic aerosols may have masked greenhouse gas-induced changes in rainfall over north-western Australia: Aerosol- and greenhouse gas-induced changes in summer rainfall and circulation in the Australasian region: a study using single-forcing climate simulations – Rotstaynet al. (2012)
• Evidence for possible similarities between End-Permian mass extinction and expected 21st century situation: Evidence for end-Permian ocean acidification from calcium isotopes in biogenic apatite – Hinojosa et al. (2012)
• Analysis of global tropical cyclone activity over the past 5,000 years: Punctuated global tropical cyclone activity over the past 5,000 years – Nott & Forsyth (2012)
• Reconstructing the sea ice season length: Variability in the length of the sea ice season in the Middle Eocene Arctic – Stickley et al. (2012)
• Western Mediterranean precipitation over the last 300 years from instrumental observations: Western Mediterranean precipitation over the last 300 years from instrumental observations – Camuffo et al. (2012)
• Most genetically diverse lizard populations are the ones most at risk from climate change: Predicting the impacts of climate change on genetic diversity in an endangered lizard species – Dubey et al. (2012)
• CO2 lagged temperature by less than 400 years and even short lead is possible during last deglaciation: Tightened constraints on the time-lag between Antarctic temperature and CO2 during the last deglaciation – Pedro et al. (2012)
• Significant increase in atmospheric long-wave radiation in Israel is caused by water vapour and anthropogenic gases: The roles of water vapour, rainfall and solar radiation in determining air temperature change measured at Bet Dagan, Israel between 1964 and 2010 – Stanhill et al. (2012)
• Changes in diurnal temperature range in Bangladesh: Changes in diurnal temperature range in Bangladesh during the time period 1961–2008 – Shahid et al. (2012)
• In Spain total cloud cover increased until 1960s when it started to decrease: Increasing cloud cover in the 20th century: review and new findings in Spain – Sanchez-Lorenzo et al. (2012)
• Large methane emission upon spring thaw from natural wetlands in the northern permafrost region: Large methane emission upon spring thaw from natural wetlands in the northern permafrost region – Song et al. (2012)
• Over past 50 years, tree growth decline has prevailed despite increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide: Probing for the influence of atmospheric CO2 and climate change on forest ecosystems across biomes – Silva & Madhur (2012)
• Particular combinations of temperature and moisture can interact directly or indirectly to limit species ranges even when these factors alone do not exceed species tolerances: The relative influence of temperature, moisture and their interaction on range limits of mammals over the past century – Smith (2012)
• Urban traffic restrictions could help attain global CO2 reduction targets: Satellite-based estimates of reduced CO and CO2 emissions due to traffic restrictions during the 2008 Beijing Olympics – Worden et al. (2012)
• Atmospheric methane increase during the abrupt warming of Younger Dryas termination might have been mostly from biomass burning: Enrichment in 13C of atmospheric CH4 during the Younger Dryas termination – Melton et al. (2012)
• Damage potential of a potato pest species might increase in future: Predicting climate-change-caused changes in global temperature on potato tuber moth Phthorimaea operculella (Zeller) distribution and abundance using phenology modeling and GIS mapping – Kroschel et al.(2012)
• Carbon emissions of Chinese cities: The carbon emissions of Chinese cities – Wang et al. (2012)
• Satellite retrieval of the liquid water fraction in tropical clouds: Satellite retrieval of the liquid water fraction in tropical clouds between −20 and −38 °C – Mitchell & d’Entremont (2012)
• Near real time satellite estimates of global biomass burning emissions: Near real time global biomass burning emissions product from geostationary satellite constellation – Zhang et al. (2012)
• North Atlantic Oscillation affects North Atlantic Ocean carbon dioxide uptake: Multi-decadal uptake of carbon dioxide into subtropical mode water of the North Atlantic Ocean – Bates (2012)
• How snow-albedo feedback affects Swiss spring temperatures: Snow-albedo feedback and Swiss spring temperature trends – Scherrer et al.(2012)
• Subduction of Mode Water has intensified in the South Pacific during 20th century: An Intensification Trend of South Pacific Mode Water Subduction Rates over the 20th Century – Liu & Wu (2012)
• Aerial photos show increase in erect shrubs in extensively warmed Low Arctic region: Recent expansion of erect shrubs in the Low Arctic: evidence from Eastern Nunavik – Tremblay et al. (2012)
• The potential of enhanced weathering in the UK: The potential of enhanced weathering in the UK – Renforth (2012)
• Medieval winters were cooler and summers were warmer than late 20th century in Scotland: Marine climatic seasonality during early medieval times (10th to 12th centuries) based on isotopic records in Viking Age shells from Orkney, Scotland – Surge & Barrett (2012)
• Satellite Oceanography and Climate Change: Satellite Oceanography and Climate Change – Garcia-Soto et al. (2012)
• New analysis on Toba super-eruption: Did the 73 ka Toba super-eruption have an enduring effect? Insights from genetics, prehistoric archaeology, pollen analysis, stable isotope geochemistry, geomorphology, ice cores, and climate models – Williams (2012)
• Consistent estimates from satellites and models for the first aerosol indirect forcing: Consistent estimates from satellites and models for the first aerosol indirect forcing – Penner et al. (2012)
• Interdecadal variability/long-term changes in global precipitation patterns: Interdecadal variability/long-term changes in global precipitation patterns during the past three decades: global warming and/or pacific decadal variability? – Gu & Adler (2012)
• Southeastern United States was one of the rare places that cooled during 20th century: The 20th century cooling trend over the southeastern United States – Rogers (2012)
• Predicted warming is unlikely to have major effects on squid but acidification may have greater impact: Role of squid in the Southern Ocean pelagic ecosystem and the possible consequences of climate change – Rodhouse (2012)
• Shifting Avian elevational ranges with changing climate: The push and pull of climate change causes heterogeneous shifts in avian elevational ranges – Tingley et al. (2012)
• Deer browsing affects temperature response of tree species: Sapling growth responses to warmer temperatures ‘cooled’ by browse pressure – Fisichelli et al. (2012)
• Livestock greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential in Europe: Livestock greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation potential in Europe – Bellarby et al. (2012)
• When calculating ice mass, remember to include small glaciers: Significant contribution to total mass from very small glaciers – Bahr & Radić (2012)
• Capacity of North Atlantic surface waters to absorb carbon dioxide has diminished: Detecting anthropogenic carbon dioxide uptake and ocean acidification in the North Atlantic Ocean – Bates et al. (2012)
• Measuring GHG’s from solar radiation: Remote sensing of CO2 and CH4 using solar absorption spectrometry with a low resolution spectrometer – Petri et al. (2012)
• Identification of climatic state with limited proxy data: Identification of climatic state with limited proxy data – Annan & Hargreaves (2012)
• Global and regional multi-annual (1996–2003) analysis of cloud properties: Seven years of global retrieval of cloud properties using space-borne data of GOME – Lelli et al. (2012)
• Latitudinally asymmetric response of global surface temperature: Latitudinally asymmetric response of global surface temperature: Implications for regional climate change – Xu & Ramanathan (2012)
• Future Baltic Sea ecosystem may unprecedentedly change compared to the past 150 yr: Comparing reconstructed past variations and future projections of the Baltic Sea ecosystem—first results from multi-model ensemble simulations – Meier et al. (2012)
• Measurements show Earth’s greenhouse effect: Solar and thermal radiation profiles and radiative forcing measured through the atmosphere – Philipona et al. (2012)
• Ice mass loss continues at high rate in Larsen B Ice Shelf: Mass loss of Larsen B tributary glaciers (Antarctic Peninsula) unabated since 2002 – Berthier et al. (2012)
• Colombia bird species are projected to lose on average between 33 and 43 % of their total range under future climate: Effects of climate change on species distribution, community structure, and conservation of birds in protected areas in Colombia – Velásquez-Tibatá et al. (2012)
• Honey, we shrunk the Alps’ snow cover: The snowline climate of the Alps 1961–2010 – Hantel et al. (2012)
• Icebergs have an effect on ocean circulation: Simulating Heinrich event 1 with interactive icebergs – Jongma et al. (2012)
• Historical and future changes in temperature extremes over Europe: Historical and future changes in maximum and minimum temperature records over Europe – Elguindi et al. (2012)
• Parisian heat island is projected to decrease with global warming: Evolution of the Parisian urban climate under a global changing climate – Lemonsu et al. (2012)
• European Alps glacier mass balance: Extrapolating glacier mass balance to the mountain-range scale: the European Alps 1900–2100 – Huss (2012)
• More on climate regime shifts: Directional influences on global temperature prediction – Wang et al. (2012)
• How to define Anthropocene?: The stratigraphic status of the Anthropocene – Gale & Hoare (2012)
• The atmospheric lifetime of black carbon: The atmospheric lifetime of black carbon – Cape et al. (2012)
• AMOC variability and climatic influence: Multicentennial variability of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation and its climatic influence in a 4000 year simulation of the GFDL CM2.1 climate model – Delworth & Zeng (2012)
• Study found that projected warming shortened mosquito lifespan, which in turn decreased the potential dengue season in 3 U.S. cities: Potential impacts of climate change on the ecology of dengue and its mosquito vector the Asian tiger mosquito (Aedes albopictus) – Erickson et al. (2012)
• The relationship of Indian summer monsoon and sunspot cycle: The Indian summer monsoon during peaks in the 11 year sunspot cycle – van Loon & Meehl (2012)
• Western tropical Pacific sea level changes are well explained by global sea-level rise and trade wind fluctuations: Multidecadal sea level anomalies and trends in the western tropical Pacific – Merrifield et al. (2012)
• Stepwise changes in stratospheric water vapor: Stepwise changes in stratospheric water vapor? – Fueglistaler (2012)
• Stratospheric water vapor and climate: Stratospheric water vapor and climate: Sensitivity to the representation in radiation codes – Maycock & Shine (2012)
• Study demonstrates the importance of including preindustrial emissions for the most scientifically defensible attribution: Attribution of atmospheric CO2 and temperature increases to regions: importance of preindustrial land use change – Pongratz & Caldeira (2012)
• Increasingly high temperatures might have negative implications for the fitness of arid-zone birds: The costs of keeping cool in a warming world: implications of high temperatures for foraging, thermoregulation and body condition of an arid-zone bird – du Plessis et al. (2012)
• Correlation of Caribbean precipitation and AMO during past 1300 years: Cuban stalagmite suggests relationship between Caribbean precipitation and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation during the past 1.3 ka – Fensterer et al. (2012)
• One more paper reporting evidence of ozone recovery: Development of a climate record of tropospheric and stratospheric column ozone from satellite remote sensing: evidence of an early recovery of global stratospheric ozone – Ziemke & Chandra (2012)
• Problems in identifying weekly cycles in meteorological variables: Identifying weekly cycles in meteorological variables: The importance of an appropriate statistical analysis – Daniel et al. (2012)
• Problems in identifying weekly cycles in meteorological variables 2: Assessing large-scale weekly cycles in meteorological variables: a review – Sanchez-Lorenzo et al. (2012)
• Are Swiss temperature series taking a break?: Break detection of annual Swiss temperature series – Kuglitsch et al. (2012)
• There they go blaming SAM for sudden cloud cover changes: Understanding sudden changes in cloud amount: The Southern Annular Mode and South American weather fluctuations – Laken & Pallé (2012)

 

[Breeder Reactor]

Upton.

Proof is needed that CO2 is a problem. Your list above is obfuscation. And it's getting boring.

 

[Breeder Reactor]

Upton.

I cooked a chicken in the oven using gas at 180C for 70 mins. Will the heat from the oven end up in a ocean current causing a melt in the Ice Caps?

Perhaps ask Steve Mosher?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Perhaps ask Steve Mosher?

Why would you ask someone with a degree in literature about thermodynamics? Maybe I should start a Wordpress blog, maybe then I could be an expert in your eyes too!

Steven M. Mosheris a global warming skeptic who coauthored the book Climategate with Thomas W. Fuller.
He was "born in Grand Rapids Michigan, graduated Northwestern University and attended UCLA for graduate studies in literature. He later joined Northrop Aircraft where he worked as a threat analyst and director of air combat analysis until transitioning to the commercial world in 1995 when he joined Creative Labs as a director of marketing and product development." [1]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Steven_M._Mosher


Coooool source, brah!

 

[cancat]

More deniers

Earth’s oceans, forests and other ecosystems continue to soak up about half the carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere by human activities, even as those emissions have increased, according to a study by University of Colorado and NOAA scientists published today in the journal Nature.
The scientists analyzed 50 years of global carbon dioxide (CO2) measurements and found that the processes by which the planet’s oceans and ecosystems absorb the greenhouse gas are not yet at capacity.

This new global analysis makes it clear that scientists do not yet understand well enough the processes by which ecosystems of the world are removing CO2 from the atmosphere, or the relative importance of possible sinks: regrowing forests on different continents, for example, or changing absorption of carbon dioxide by various ocean regions.
“Since we don’t know why or where this process is happening, we cannot count on it,” Tans said. “We need to identify what’s going on here, so that we can improve our projections of future CO2 levels and how climate change will progress in the future.”

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/storie...tml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

[The Goon]

“Globally, these carbon dioxide ‘sinks’ have roughly kept pace with emissions from human activities, continuing to draw about half of the emitted CO2 back out of the atmosphere. However, we do not expect this to continue indefinitely,”

Ballantyne, Tans and their colleagues saw no faster-than-expected rise, however. Their estimate showed that overall, oceans and natural ecosystems continue to pull about half of people’s carbon dioxide emissions out of the atmosphere. Since emissions of CO2 have increased substantially since 1960, Ballantyne said, "Earth is taking up twice as much CO2 today as it was 50 years ago."
The rest continues to accumulate in the atmosphere, where it is likely to accelerate global warming.

“The uptake of carbon dioxide by the oceans and by ecosystems is expected to slow down gradually,” Tans said. Oceans, for example, are already becoming more acidic as they absorb about a quarter of the carbon dioxide pumped into the air by human activities. “As the oceans acidify, we know it becomes harder to stuff even more CO2 into the oceans,” Tans said. “We just don’t see a letup, globally, yet."

Interesting article, however there is nothing "denial" about it.

TL/DR summary: We don't yet fully understand the CO2 absorption processes and limitations of the environment.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

More deniers





http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/storie...tml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Um. No. You're doing it wrong. This has NOTHING to do with deniers or the idiocy those types (in my lighter moments I like to imagine you weren't among that 'type' because I think so much more highly of you than that) subscribe to.

This isn't some big revelation that will fundamentally shift our understanding of the carbon cycle. Even I've said on numerous occasions that the biosphere absorbs roughly 50% of the total CO2 we emit but that is the other 50% that has accumulated and caused atmospheric concentrations to increase by about 40% over the last 250 years. This is a commonly accepted fact and has been for as long as I've been having these discussions with people.

The carbon cycle regulates the concentrations of Co2 in the atmosphere and the oceans and biomass are capable of soaking up phenomenal amounts of CO2, about 50% of the Co2 we add to the atmosphere gets reabsorbed, but it is the other half that the cycle can't absorbs that is accumulating in the atmosphere and causing the planet to warm.

Upton Sinclair, Oct 13, 2011 Delete Report​

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/the-carbon-debate-part-ii.881523/page-2#post-22585456

This just confirms through new methods something that other evidence already showed, it doesn't undermine climate science in any way, shape or form. And the sad thing is you miss the real significance of this research, that while the world still has capacity to absorb so much of our pollution, it might not last forever. The more we pollute and destroy the biomass through deforestation, excessive agriculture and the damage we do to the oceans, then we might lose this advantage and all of a sudden the problem becomes 50% bigger.

 

[Northalives]

Upton.

Proof is needed that CO2 is a problem. Your list above is obfuscation. And it's getting boring.

ha ha ha ha ha....uhhh ha ha ha ha ....proof is needed that CO2 is a problem....ha ha ha ha ha ....

Carbon monoxide is not a problem if you don't lock yourself in an airtight room and pump it in. Arsenic is not a problem if you don't consume it and drowning does not exist if you don't hold your head under water for half an hour.

You are the same type of people who backed the makers of Thalidomide and Asbestos mining 'cause it "created jobs".

 

[cancat]

This isn't some big revelation that will fundamentally shift our understanding of the carbon cycle. Even I've said on numerous occasions that the biosphere absorbs roughly 50% of the total CO2 we emit but that is the other 50% that has accumulated and caused atmospheric concentrations to increase by about 40% over the last 250 years. This is a commonly accepted fact and has been for as long as I've been having these discussions with people.

The amount of CO2 is increasing. It should lead to some warming. The debate is about how much warming the increase in CO2 might lead to, and the effects of that warming. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that this warming will not have catastrophic consequences.

This just confirms through new methods something that other evidence already showed, it doesn't undermine climate science in any way, shape or form. And the sad thing is you miss the real significance of this research, that while the world still has capacity to absorb so much of our pollution, it might not last forever. The more we pollute and destroy the biomass through deforestation, excessive agriculture and the damage we do to the oceans, then we might lose this advantage and all of a sudden the problem becomes 50% bigger.

ha ha ha ha ha....uhhh ha ha ha ha ....proof is needed that CO2 is a problem....ha ha ha ha ha ....

Carbon monoxide is not a problem if you don't lock yourself in an airtight room and pump it in. Arsenic is not a problem if you don't consume it and drowning does not exist if you don't hold your head under water for half an hour.

You are the same type of people who backed the makers of Thalidomide and Asbestos mining 'cause it "created jobs".

The deeming of CO2 as 'polution' is political shenanigans. CO2 is an essential part of the world's biosystem, without it all life on the planet would cease. There are no credible scientific projections where CO2 becomes toxic to humans in the next few thousand years.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Way to dodge the point CC. Are you even going to acknowledge that you completely misinterpreted the Nature piece you quoted and that the paper doesn't change one iota our understanding of the amount of human emissions being recirculated through the natural carbon cycle before moving onto you well-worn denier talking points?

The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that this warming will not have catastrophic consequences.

That;s just simply not true and not at all reflective of the peer review literature. It might be part of the "debate" being had by "experts" like literature graduate Steve Mosher, quoted above, but not by anyone credible.

The evidence shows that the best sensitivity calculations (i.e. those with the highest statistical probability) show about 3 degrees of warming for a doubling of CO2. There is very high degree of certainty that it won't be in the lower range (1 - 2 degrees) and there's still uncertainty as to whether it might fall in the end (4 degrees).

That's about the sum total of the "debate" as it has stood since at least 2005.

The deeming of CO2 as 'polution' is political shenanigans. CO2 is an essential part of the world's biosystem, without it all life on the planet would cease. There are no credible scientific projections where CO2 becomes toxic to humans in the next few thousand years.

No, this "debate" you keep going on about is political shenanigans, as is the way you insist on dragging the discussion down to the level of semantic quibbling just so that you don't have to acknowledge that you' made a mistake and had been called out on it.

As for the semantics, how come I don't hear you complaining about people using terms like 'light pollution' or 'noise pollution' because, after all, light and noise aren't toxic to humans either? Surely they are just "political shenanigans" too, right? Or is it that your definition of pollution is just something you've made up on the fly bevause it happens to suit your political agenda?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution

 

[OldBlueFan]

The deeming of CO2 as 'polution' is political shenanigans. CO2 is an essential part of the world's biosystem, without it all life on the planet would cease. There are no credible scientific projections where CO2 becomes toxic to humans in the next few thousand years.

Mmmmmm ....

The dead sea: Global warming blamed for 40 per cent decline in the ocean's phytoplankton

"Phytoplankton is the fuel on which marine ecosystems run. A decline of phytoplankton affects everything up the food chain, including humans," Dr Boyce said.

You were saying?

 

[cancat]

Way to dodge the point CC. Are you even going to acknowledge that you completely misinterpreted the Nature piece you quoted and that the paper doesn't change one iota our understanding of the amount of human emissions being recirculated through the natural carbon cycle before moving onto you well-worn denier talking points?

Upton, perhaps it is you who misinterpreted this research. The premise was that rates of carbon uptake by the land and ocean might have declined recently. They found that wasn't the case, that net global carbon uptake has increased significantly. If you already had conclusive evidence for that, perhaps you should have sent them an email or something.

That;s just simply not true and not at all reflective of the peer review literature. It might be part of the "debate" being had by "experts" like literature graduate Steve Mosher, quoted above, but not by anyone credible.

The evidence shows that the best sensitivity calculations (i.e. those with the highest statistical probability) show about 3 degrees of warming for a doubling of CO2. There is very high degree of certainty that it won't be in the lower range (1 - 2 degrees) and there's still uncertainty as to whether it might fall in the end (4 degrees).

The evidence doesn't show it, the models might do. But these would be the same models that failed to predict that the world’s temperature would not increase for the 16 years between 1995 and 2011. (Source HadCrut3).

As for the semantics, how come I don't hear you complaining about people using terms like 'light pollution' or 'noise pollution' because, after all, light and noise aren't toxic to humans either? Surely they are just "political shenanigans" too, right? Or is it that your definition of pollution is just something you've made up on the fly bevause it happens to suit your political agenda?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollution

Do you think that when Julia Gillard constantly refers to carbon dioxide as "carbon pollution" or her policy as "clean energy" they are neutral terms? Or maybe she is trying to evoke an image of 'dirtyness' that she is going to save us from?

(Interesting aside - the original meaning of pollution was the discharge of semen other than during sex)

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Upton, perhaps it is you who misinterpreted this research. The premise was that rates of carbon uptake by the land and ocean might have declined recently. They found that wasn't the case, that net global carbon uptake has increased significantly. If you already had conclusive evidence for that, perhaps you should have sent them an email or something.

No, the only thing I have missed is just how you think the research helps the denier case.

The evidence doesn't show it, the models might do. But these would be the same models that failed to predict that the world’s temperature would not increase for the 16 years between 1995 and 2011. (Source HadCrut3).

1. Climate models don't have much to say about such a short time series, the statistical noise of natural variability drowns out any meaningful signal.

2. Climate models routinely turn out results that show periods of longer than a decade that go against the warming trend.

3. You're cherry picking your time series, any body can cherry pick the results that they want from noisy data, esepcially when you land it on a realtively cool La Nina year if you shift that same data back a year to 2010 then it shows an upward trend:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1995/to:2010

The best way to highlight the pitfalls of cherry pickig from noisy data, this picture really says it all:

Do you think that when Julia Gillard constantly refers to carbon dioxide as "carbon pollution" or her policy as "clean energy" they are neutral terms? Or maybe she is trying to evoke an image of 'dirtyness' that she is going to save us from?

The only reason you want "neutral" terms is because you have infused the scientific debate with your political beliefs. Why don't you demand more "neutral" terms whenever anyone refers to noise pollution?

(Interesting aside - the original meaning of pollution was the discharge of semen other than during sex)

Well, that's hands down THE most interesting factoid I've heard from a denier in this thread

 

[Upton Sinclair]

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Gavin Schmidt on the BEST/WUWT brouhaha:

As most readers are probably aware, there was an op-ed in the Saturday New York Times from Richard Muller announcing the Berkeley Earth team’s latest results. It was odd enough that a scientific paper was announced via an op-ed, rather than a press release, odder still that the paper was only being submitted and had not actually been accepted, and most odd of all was the framing – a ‘converted skeptic’ being convinced by his studies that the planet has indeed warmed and that human activity is the cause – which as Mike and Ken Caldiera pointed out has been known for almost 2 decades.

Not wanting to be upstaged, plenty of ‘unconverted skeptics’ – including Anthony Watts and Ross McKitrick decided to stage dramatic press events and release barbs of their own. This was followed by a general piling on of commenters and bloggers trying to spin the events in their preferred direction combined with plenty of cluelessness in the general media about exactly who these people are (no-one special), what earth-shattering discovery had been made (none) and what it all means (not a lot).

The ‘best’ response to this circus is to sit back and see how pretzel-like the logical justifications can become. I particularly like the recent twist to the “No true scotsman” post-hoc rationalisation. Since the ‘converted skeptic’/prodigal scientist meme is a very powerful framing for the media, the obvious riposte for the ‘skeptics’ is to declare that Muller was not a true skeptic. But since these terms have become meaningless in terms of any specific position, this ends up as a semantic argument that convinces no-one but the faithful.

The actual trigger for all this hoopla is the deadline for papers that can be cited in the Second Order Draft of the new IPCC report. They needed to have been submitted to a journal by Tuesday (31 July) to qualify. Of course, they also need to be interesting, relevant and known to the IPCC lead authors. But there seems to be far too much emphasis being put on this deadline. The AR5 report is pretty much 90% written, and the broad outlines have been known for ages. Very few of the papers that have been submitted this week are anything other than minor steps forward and only a small number will be accorded anything other than a brief mention in AR5, and most not even that.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

A good op-ed from James Hansen:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...d90-11e1-8e43-4a3c4375504a_story.html?hpid=z3

Twenty-four years ago, I introduced the concept of “climate dice” to help distinguish the long-term trend of climate change from the natural variability of day-to-day weather. Some summers are hot, some cool. Some winters brutal, some mild. That’s natural variability.

But as the climate warms, natural variability is altered, too. In a normal climate without global warming, two sides of the die would represent cooler-than-normal weather, two sides would be normal weather, and two sides would be warmer-than-normal weather. Rolling the die again and again, or season after season, you would get an equal variation of weather over time.

But loading the die with a warming climate changes the odds. You end up with only one side cooler than normal, one side average, and four sides warmer than normal. Even with climate change, you will occasionally see cooler-than-normal summers or a typically cold winter. Don’t let that fool you.

Our new peer-reviewed study, published by the National Academy of Sciences, makes clear that while average global temperature has been steadily rising due to a warming climate (up about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past century), the extremes are actually becoming much more frequent and more intense worldwide.

When we plotted the world’s changing temperatures on a bell curve, the extremes of unusually cool and, even more, the extremes of unusually hot are being altered so they are becoming both more common and more severe.

The change is so dramatic that one face of the die must now represent extreme weather to illustrate the greater frequency of extremely hot weather events.

Such events used to be exceedingly rare. Extremely hot temperatures covered about 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent of the globe in the base period of our study, from 1951 to 1980. In the last three decades, while the average temperature has slowly risen, the extremes have soared and now cover about 10 percent of the globe.

This is the world we have changed, and now we have to live in it — the world that caused the 2003 heat wave in Europe that killed more than 50,000 people and the 2011 drought in Texas that caused more than $5 billion in damage. Such events, our data show, will become even more frequent and more severe.

 

[cancat]

1. Climate models don't have much to say about such a short time series, the statistical noise of natural variability drowns out any meaningful signal.

Standard quote after the models have failed.

James Hansen testififed to the US House of Representatives in 1988 that there was a strong cause and effect relationship between observed temperatures and human emissions. Hiis model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C. He projected future temperature trends using 3 different human greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Scenario A assumed continued accelerating greenhouse gas growth. Scenario B assumed a slowing and eventually constant rate of growth, and Scenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions. He was way off.

3. You're cherry picking your time series, any body can cherry pick the results that they want from noisy data, esepcially when you land it on a realtively cool La Nina year if you shift that same data back a year to 2010 then it shows an upward trend:

LOL. Then you show me a chart only going back to to 1973. The bulk of the rise in temperature during the 20th century occurred from 1900 to 1940. It was followed by cooling period from 1940 to around 1975, so much so that there was concern the world was heading into the next glacial age. Yet the concentration of CO2 was higher in the cooling period than in the warming.

P.S. careful with your BIG posts. Against the SRP rules and getting Bitpattern-esque.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Standard quote after the models have failed.

James Hansen testififed to the US House of Representatives in 1988 that there was a strong cause and effect relationship between observed temperatures and human emissions. Hiis model predicted that global temperature between 1988 and 1997 would rise by 0.45°C. He projected future temperature trends using 3 different human greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Scenario A assumed continued accelerating greenhouse gas growth. Scenario B assumed a slowing and eventually constant rate of growth, and Scenario C assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions. He was way off.

Yes. Nice try try but had you actually cited the article that you pulled that graph from you'd have to admit to the conclusion of the source, which is that Hansen overestimated climate sensitivity. But it's been 25 years since Hansen's testimony, things have progressed quite a bit since 1988, our understanding of climate sensitivity is richer and more nuanced and models have become increasingly sophisticated:

LOL. Then you show me a chart only going back to to 1973. The bulk of the rise in temperature during the 20th century occurred from 1900 to 1940. It was followed by cooling period from 1940 to around 1975, so much so that there was concern the world was heading into the next glacial age. Yet the concentration of CO2 was higher in the cooling period than in the warming.

So you completely missed the point I was making? Well done. That takes a special kind of obstinance. Let me spell it out for you, you are citing a 16 year 'trend' as evidence that the models are inaccurate because they don't account for this 'cooling' (never mind that when I adjust the exact same date to a 15 year time period that 'trend' is reversed). I'm showing you an example in the instrumental record where you can plot 10 year 'cooling' 'trends' even when the long term trend is clearly upward. this has nothing to do with when warming happened or even what caused warming, you could do the same demonstration on any part of the temperature record - or any other noisy data that show a high degree of variability - the point is to demonstrate you can cherry pick your way to short term 'trends' pretty much at any point. It's meaningless and entirely typical of the cheap parlour tricks that pass for arguments among science deniers such as yourself.

P.S. careful with your BIG posts. Against the SRP rules and getting Bitpattern-esque.

Do you always get this bitchy when your beliefs are undermined?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Yet another round of "recent research". Still nothing from those thousands of "sceptical" scientists with their supposed access to all that "raw data". A bit of a glaring inconsistency in Dan26's narrative, to understate the issue somewhat

Tree-ring proxies can provide reliable indicators of temperature variability even in rapidly warming climate Tree-ring reconstructed summer temperatures from northwestern North America during the last nine centuries – Anchukaitis et al. (2012)

Global coverage for carbon dioxide measurements from satellites Patterns of CO2 variability from global satellite data – Ruzmaikin et al. (2012)

Southeast Australia autumn rainfall reduction might be due to poleward shift of ocean-atmosphere circulation Southeast Australia autumn rainfall reduction: A climate-change induced poleward shift of ocean-atmosphere circulation – Cai & Cowan (2012)

Satellite records have only recently reached sufficient length to detect trends in cloudiness PATMOS-x: Results from a Diurnally-Corrected Thirty-Year Satellite Cloud Climatology – Foster & Heidinger (2012)

It’s not internal variability, it’s not unknown forcing, it’s mankind Testing for the possible influence of unknown climate forcings upon global temperature increases from 1950-2000 – Anderson et al. (2012)

Observations of climate feedbacks over 2000-2010 and comparisons to climate models Observations of climate feedbacks over 2000-2010 and comparisons to climate models – Dessler (2012)

Simulating the effects of methane disaster scenario Damage of land biosphere due to intense warming by 1000-fold rapid increase in atmospheric methane: Estimation with a climate-carbon cycle model – Obata & Shibata (2012)

Extracting seasonal climate information from Antarctic ice cores Seasonal climate information preserved in West Antarctic ice core water isotopes: relationships to temperature, large-scale circulation, and sea ice – Küttel et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]

Abrupt climate changes in Northern hemisphere during MWP but not during LIA Abrupt temperature changes during the last 1,500 years – Matyasovszky & Ljungqvist (2012)

Warming of 2K impacts Europe economy only moderately but 4K warming impact is clearly negative Impacts and adaptation to climate change in European economies – Aaheim et al. (2012)

Aerosols cause solar dimming so rice yields decrease despite of warming climate Increasing concentrations of aerosols offset the benefits of climate warming on rice yields during 1980–2008 in Jiangsu Province, China – Shuai et al. (2012)

Analysis of aerosol and ozone forcing between 1850 and 2100 Aerosol and ozone changes as forcing for climate evolution between 1850 and 2100 – Szopa et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]

Western North American tree populations already lag behind their optimal climate niche Tracking suitable habitat for tree populations under climate change in western North America – Gray & Hamann (2012)

Arctic Ocean contributes to Arctic amplification by losing heat to atmosphere when sea ice retreats Heat budget of the upper Arctic Ocean under a warming climate – Graham & Vellinga (2012)

How Little Ice Age showed up in Antarctica? Little Ice Age climate and oceanic conditions of the Ross Sea, Antarctica from a coastal ice core record – Rhodes et al. (2012) [FULL TEXT]

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Anyone know if there are any models that allow for massive increases of methane in the atmosphere?

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00533.1?af=R&

Decadal timescale responses of climate and the global carbon cycle to warming associated with rapid increases in atmospheric methane from a massive methane release from marine sedimentary methane hydrates are investigated with a coupled climate-carbon cycle model. A 1000-fold methane increase (from <1 to 1000 ppmv) causes surface air temperatures to increase with a global warming of >6°C within 80 years. The amount of carbon stored in the land biosphere decreases by >25%. This is mostly due to a large decrease in tropical net primary production during the first few years (~−40%), which is caused by a decrease in photosynthesis and an increase in plant maintenance respiration with the early warming of ~3°C, leading to tropical forest dieback (>20%) and the largest decrease in vegetation carbon of >50% (~80% of the decrease in global vegetation carbon). The decrease in global land carbon is also partly due to forest diebacks (mainly boreal forest dieback by heat stress) at northern middle latitudes. In contrast, vegetation increases by >50% at northern high latitudes because of the amelioration to warm and wet conditions. Sensitivity experiments show that the warming of >6°C consists mainly of >5°C by the 1000-fold atmospheric methane and an additional increase of 1°C by the atmospheric CO2 increase due to the land CO2 release, and that the CO2 fertilization of land plants prevents further warming of 1°C by limiting the atmospheric CO2 increase. The large decrease in land biomass estimated in this study suggests a critical situation for the land ecosystem or agricultural production especially in the tropics.

 

[fishardansin]

Wow that seems a little extreme though. I mean what sort of warming would we have to see to release the methane at the bottom of the ocean? I was thinking more about the methane under the permafrost.

Regards the methane at the bottom of the ocean I think if that is released it will cause a massive extinction event in the ocean as it changes the chemical make up and many sea creature just drown. Like I've said in this thread before the greatest extinction event in the fossil record was caused by extreme volcanic activity over milenia increasing Co2 in the atmoshpere leading to a 5 deg warming, which then caused this under water methane to be released which in turn killed off most sea creatures, 70% of species. In 10,000 years the world heated up by 10 deg.

From what I've read in regards sensitivity denialists around the world are underplaying it.

Is there a model with just the methane from the northern hemisphere tundra thawing?

 

[Upton Sinclair]

Wow that seems a little extreme though. I mean what sort of warming would we have to see to release the methane at the bottom of the ocean? I was thinking more about the methane under the permafrost.

Regards the methane at the bottom of the ocean I think if that is released it will cause a massive extinction event in the ocean as it changes the chemical make up and many sea creature just drown. Like I've said in this thread before the greatest extinction event in the fossil record was caused by extreme volcanic activity over milenia increasing Co2 in the atmoshpere leading to a 5 deg warming, which then caused this under water methane to be released which in turn killed off most sea creatures, 70% of species. In 10,000 years the world heated up by 10 deg.

From what I've read in regards sensitivity denialists around the world are underplaying it.

Is there a model with just the methane from the northern hemisphere tundra thawing?

Wiki has quite a good page on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release. Not exactly a model but I think it is probably about as reflective of the scientific opinion on the matter as you can get.

 

[fishardansin]

When I say model I mean does anyone run a climate model with a tipping point, or even some functional relationship, not necesarily linear, that says at x mean temperature increase we'll see y amount of methane added to the atmosphere. I'm sure they'd also have things like the limit of Co2 that the ocean can absorb built into it.