Climate Change: The Burden of Proof

[Ban my account ffs!]

This will never happen, Torie.  For some time now, the scientists have been working hard to make the data fit the model.. not the other way around.  They adjust the temperature data every few years, and each time the warming trend gets steeper than it was prior to the adjustments.  Before you accuse me of buhying into "vast conspiracy theories"... it is a small number of people at a single organization that control the surface temperature data.  So when Jfern trots out his 'BUT MULLER AT BERKELY CONFIRMED IT".. I say simply.. yeah.. using the same adjusted data that every other agency uses to compile global temp.

They adjust to make warming appear more extreme by making the past colder and the present warmer.  And because most people don't understand statistical methods, they can hide it in plain sight.

THe satellite temperature data does not confirm the amount of warming the surface record shows since 1979 and they don't justify the adjustments either.  And despite their adjustments, the trend is still well below all but the lowest model predictions (those low model predictions assumed a massive drop in CO2 emissions after 2000 when in fact there was such a huge rise that something like 30% of all carbon emitted by humans ever has been emitted sicne 2000.. during the infamous "pause").  Again, the satellites show a slow warming trend since 1979 that would be well below any model prediction.

So the small handful of high profile climate scientists that are involved with these adjustments engage in smear campaigns against the satellite temperature data... projecting the many criticisms that skeptics have of their surface temperature data onto the satellite data.

But really I've given up on the issue.  I'm still passionate about it and I believe I'm right that the human component of climate change will be mild to moderate and will not cause great harm to humanity or the planet.

But the alarmists have won.  They can now argue, and often convincingly to the unwashed masses, that CO2 driven global warming is causing more cold outbreaks and blizzards as well as more heatwaves, floods, and droughts.

They didn't win on science.  They won using messaging, hysteria, and sensationalism.  And not even scientists can surmount that.  So it's best to just give up.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Richard Muller was a major skeptic who had a lot of problems with the existing research. So he did he own research to look into each of those problems. He realized climate change is happening after all. So all you skeptics should just read his study.

Like a broken record...

... So when Jfern trots out his 'BUT MULLER AT BERKELY CONFIRMED IT".. I say simply.. yeah.. using the same adjusted data that every other agency uses to compile global temp...

[Ban my account ffs!]

Please dont link to that trash website, and I wont link to the equivalent "iceagenow.com"

The owners of skeptical science fancy themselves as nazi enthusiasts and have even played dress up.

Here is a picture of cartoonist and web programmer masquerading as climate scientist John Cook, one of the main "scientists" on Skeptical Science, dressed as a Nazi.  This photo was undr his own personal files and posted on their members' forum.  When skeptical science"s private forum hacked and its contents posted online and Anthony Watts reported about it, they were promptly taken down.



You have some real wholesome people providing your catastrophic manmade glbal warming evidence for you, adam t.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'd suggest sticking to published work.  And then to papers focused on climate science itself, and not the alleged future impacts of it, since those almost always rely on worst case scenarios that are meant to scare you into action.

[Ban my account ffs!]

So, anyway.  These are independent sources backing up the claims from Skeptical Science, which seems far more important to me than what some guy who may be a loon may wear for fun.


1.Surface temperature analysis by NASA GISS finds strong agreement with two independent analyses by CRU's Global Temperature Record and NCDC.

https://judithcurry.com/2012/07/29/a-new-release-from-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature/

2.Weather balloon measurements have found from 1975 through 2005, the global mean, near-surface air temperature warmed by approximately 0.23°C/decade.

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/temp/angell/angell.html

Well, there is actually no need to go any further, because all of the claims on skepticalscience.com provide links to the original journal articles.

So, it seems at best you have one guy who may be a loon because he may have dressed up as a Nazi once and may have lied about his resume, none of which I can find independent verification on outside of denier websites.

You're just another denier know-nothing who plays the man and not the ball because you can't actually argue the science.  Or, in this case, maybe makes up lies about the man.

The main problem is this:

There are only three sources of global temperature...

1.  The surface temperature record which is compiled by a selection of surface weather stations around the world (mostly in urban areas outside of the U.S.).  This leaves large chunks of the globe uncovered including nearly all of Antarctica, the entire Arctic Ocean, most of central Africa and big chunks of Siberia, northern Canada, and western/central Asia.

2.  Satellite records which cover the entire globe and measure temperature indirectly.  These are poo pooed by activists because they show a much slower rate of warming (half the rate of the surface temperature stations).  They also do not corroborate the alleged rapid warming of the Arctic that our surface record shows (even though we have no stations covering the heart of the Arctic).  They also tend to show the "pause" in global warming that the surface record did show until the most recent adjustments (known as the pause-buster adjustment among skeptics).

3.  Weather balloons:  These are released daily all over the world and measure the whole atmosphere.  These tend to corroborate the satellite record and not the surface station record.


So why do we have twice as much warming in the surface station record? 

1.  Poor station siting (in big, growing cities or right next to human made machinery like air conditioners which put out hot air, etc)

2.  Arbitrary adjustments. 

All of the surface record comes at some point from the Global Historic Climate Network (GHCN).  This data is already adjusted to increase the warming trend.  Then it is sent form there to NASA GISS or HadCRU or stays at NOAA where it is adjusted further through a process called "homogenization".. where they blend temp anomalies with those of neighboring stations and extrapolate the anomalies out up to 1200km (this is how they can say central Africa or the Arctic were 'hot' even though nobody was there to record the temperature).  75% of the time, adjustments increase the warming trend. 

When skeptics wanted the raw data to make their own comparisons... they were stonewalled and told that much of the raw data had been destroyed.  Only the adjusted data remains!

This becomes a bigger and bigger problem as the datasets continue to diverge.

It used to be that all of the datasets agreed (satellite, weather balloons, and surface stations).. but starting around 2005 they began to adjust the surface record higher and higher in order to show warming was occurring.  But those scientists have no control over the satellite data products which are independently published.

In the end you get this: 

NASA GISS highly adjusted product


vs.

The satellite record from University of Alabama-Huntsville



How can we have a serious discussion on global warming mitigation if we don't even know how much the climate has warmed?

[Ban my account ffs!]

It never takes long to weed out a scientific lightweight.  You're throwing all kinds of stuff in there that I never brought up!  And then you call for my banning after copy/pasting a bunch of irrelevant garbage filled with VERY BIG TECHNICAL WORDS AND STUFF to try and muster up an authoritative tone.

Please...


Here is my rebuttal to points 2 and 3, "On to the science"

I don't know why I have to respond to someone with such an ignorant view of climate science... but I like this issue and I can't help myself.

Do you know what the troposphere is?  Do you know that the cherry picked and well adjusted datasets that all global warming alarmists use only measure temperature 2 meters above the ground?  That, unlike the satellite data, they only measure that one spot?

You opened a whole new can of worms with your big gotcha.  First of all, they separate the data into various altitudes (Temperature Lower Troposphere/TLT and Temperature mid-Troposphere/TMT) because obviously temperature changes as you climb higher and higher.  This is why mountain tops have snow when the valley gets rain!  Wow!  Sciency!

But we've always measured temperature, you know, at about shoulder height with thermometers set in white painted, ventilated boxes.  So we try to approximate that as best we can with the satellites which measure from the ocean surface up to the top of the atmosphere!  The dataset I showed is the best approximation of the surface of the earth... where you and I spend most of our time.  Why should I combine that with temperatures at 20,000 feet above sea level when the surface land+ocean record doesn't?  That would make the two sources incomparable. My point was to show that the warming trend measured by satellites is much lower than the warming trend measured by surface weather stations, which have been subject to many adjustments... nearly all of which push the warming trend higher.

It brings up a great point and another refutation of global warming science:  The models and reality are out of touch with each other. 

The global climate models predict that the highest rate of warming should occur where greenhouse gases from human activities are building up the most.  And that is in the mid-troposphere over the tropical regions.  This is because that is where there would be the most greenhouse gas molecules coupled with the strongest, most direct solar radiation, which would bring the greatest greenhouse interaction with those molecules.

But that's not where the most warming is occurring!  Warming has been only modest in the tropical mid-troposphere.  No... the most warming has occurred.. well.. in large, growing cities.. but let's pretend for a second that much of the warming trend in those graphs isn't just urban heat and it is "global" in nature... the next most warming has occurred in the Arctic regions (but not the Antarctic despite, again, the models saying it should occur there too!).

So the models say it should occur in the mid-troposphere over the tropics most... in fact those regions have warmed only modestly... while the Northern Hemispheric surface polar regions have warmed the most.  Skeptics who have an alternative, all of the above approach believe this has more to do with solar-driven atmospheric and oceanic oscillations that periodically increase transfer of heat from the tropics to the Arctic.

But back to the warming predicted by our very expensive, bloated, but worthless global climate models being different from reality...

That's why all you hear about when the media runs their tripe is polar bears and eskimos or isolated extreme weather events.  They're cherry picking.  In fact, NOAA often has to quietly release a paper months after most extreme weather events to point out that, no, climate change was not, in fact, responsible for the event.  Though they usually tack on the standard disclaimer at the end for the foolish that "but we do expect such weather events to increase in the future".

As for the "pause"... since the year 2000, something like a quarter of CO2 ever released by mankind, has been released.  Global emissions absolutely exploded during the 2000s.  Yet, according to the satellite data, and in the GISS/HadCRUT/NCEI pre-2015 adjusted record, there had been no warming since the year 2001.  (I've taken 1998 out of the equation to shut you up). 

The science says there shouldn't be a huge delay from the time you emit the CO2 to when it begins warming the atmosphere because the heat is instantly trapped as soon as those greenhouse gases mix into the atmosphere and outgoing longwave radiation interacts with the molecule.

Despite cries from activist scientists that the heat immediately went into the ocean before it could be recorded by our satellites or weather stations, the data doesn't bear that out.  We don't measure the ocean well enough to know how much heat went in.. but we do measure sea level.. and a given amount of heat will cause a given amount of sea level rise because heat causes expansion of the ocean... and it just hasn't been the case.  Sea level rise has not accelerated despite this alleged massive increase in ocean heat since 2000.

So what happened?  Well.. that heat never existed.  Because the theory is wrong.  The climate just isn't as sensitive to CO2 as we think it is.  Don't get me wrong... it still warms the atmosphere.  And we can expect a doubling of CO2 to cause about 0.8-1.5C of warming (so the temperature in the mid to late 21st century, when CO2 is at 560ppm will be 0.8-1.5C warmer than it was in 1750AD, when CO2 was 280ppm, all else being equal).  That will not be enough to justify radical economic reforms before such reforms are ready to occur naturally within the strictures of our current economic paradigm.

[Ban my account ffs!]

One last thing:

Calling for my banning over this issue just proves my point that this one particular issue is really no longer about science or level headed analysis.. but dogmatic "belief" and "faith"...

SNAP OUT OF IT

[Ban my account ffs!]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What you linked to was a comparison of satellite temperature data and the global climate models.  These are not the datasets I was referring to.  The datasets I'm referring to are the satellite temperature data and the land+ocean surface temperature record provided by NASA GISS, HadCRU, and NCEI.

Basically, the satellites are measuring less warming than our surface weather stations.  I am explaining to you that the discrepancy is caused not by a problem with the satellite measurements, but by frequent adjustments to the surface weather station and ocean surface datasets that make the warming much worse.  THOSE are the graphs I posted above... NASA GISS's land+ocean surface station temperature product vs. UAH's satellite temperature product.

We are measuring the temperature of the globe in two different ways, and they are diverging.  This is especially the case since the land/ocean surface station record was adjusted last year to greatly increase the warming trend since 1998.

NASA GISS's product now shows a warming of 0.144*C/decade for the period January 1998 to January 2016.  By contrast, UAH's satellite data shows a trend of -0.009*C/decade over the same period. 

The land+ocean surface records were most recently adjusted drastically upward to eliminate the "pause" that had been occurring from 1997-present.  They did this by removing satellite derived ocean temperature measurements from the dataset and then adjusting the data from ocean going vessels that scoop up water into the ship and measure the temperature UPWARD.  This erased a flat trend and added a tenth of a degree celsius per decade to the trend.  Now 300 scientists have petitioned for congress to look into this.

Skeptics argue that the adjustments made to the former are arbitrary and politically motivated and counter it with the satellite data, which does not show the warming.

As for the comparison of the models vs. satellite temperature divergence... those scientists are right to question the current inputs in the models.  Except they cannot change those because that would mean they would have to reduce the expected warming over the 21st century which would lessen the urgency in tackling climate change.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'll try not to be vitriolic because it's not going to aid any debate or arguments we have.  But the first sentence is absolutely wrong.  It takes far more energy input to warm air that is 30C to 31C than it does from -31C to -30C.  So no... warming is not warming.

Also, it is very important that the planet warms the way the global climate models predict because if it doesn't, it suggests there are other causes for the warming (ie the sun, long term internal climate oscillations, etc). 

Climate scientists have claimed that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the main culprit for the warming since 1950 and have further been confident that CO2 warming has a signature... that is... greatest warming in the tropical mid-troposphere.

You showed me a paper that is hardly conclusive.  The scientists took only weather balloon data and then cherry picked it until they found the results they were looking for.  It has not, to my knowledge, been reconfirmed through additional studies... and the satellite data continue to show no signature of elevated warming in the tropical mid-troposphere.



This graph shows warming in the tropical mid troposphere (TMT) is less than overall warming of the surface.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You're putting all sorts of words and intentions in my mouth/message here.

I should have said "press release".  This is the way things go:

1.  Extreme weather event occurs.

2.  Press and some prominent alarmists like Bill Nye wonder if climate change is to blame for said event.

3.  Some months pass.

4.  NOAA puts out a press release saying climate change had no discernible impact on said event.  This press release, unlike the earlier wonderings of Bill Nye and the sensationalist press, does not get wide release.

This release from NOAA detailing extreme weather events from 2013 said that you could plausibly connect climate change to extreme heat waves... but not to other events like floods, droughts, or storms.

http://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/assets/File/publications/BAMS_EEE_2013_Full_Report.pdf

This included the then worsening California drought.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The best part about this is that the vast majority of the warming since WWII took place in a relatively short period from 1976-1998.  And yet CO2 emissions were growing much faster prior to 1973 and then after 2000.. during times when the planet didn't warm.



Another graph that shows the magnitude of emissions since 2000




As for your last bit about sea level rises:

This is how it went.

1.  Planet stopped warming consistently.

2.  Climate scientists finally acknowledge this around 2011 or so.. dub it the "hiatus" or "pause".

3.  They begin looking for alternative explanations as to why that do not include "because CO2 doesn't have as high an upward impact on global temperature as we think it does."

4.  All kinds of explanations are put forth, including
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/nasa-pause-exists-and-is-due-to-ocean-heat-storage.html

The ability of the ocean to store heat has increased enough after 1998 to keep the surface of the earth from warming at all.

5.  No acceleration in sea level rise from before 1998 counters this hypothesis since dramatically increased ocean heat uptake would result in an increase in seal level rise.  Instead, sea level rise continues at same pace as before, pouring cold water on the theory.

The reason for the pause remained inconvenient and without a plausible explanation... so they nuked the temperature data and erased the pause from existence.

[Ban my account ffs!]

It's simply not true that the data says the warming has been strongest in the upper troposphere.  It has been strongest at the surface and then in the northern latitudes of the northern hemisphere.

This is the currently accepted science.  One paper showed otherwise, but it is only one paper and it does not have robust enough standing because of the methods used in picking the data.  Our satellites continue to measure the mid and upper troposphere and continue to find that warming is strongest at the surface.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Snowguy, your claim that there is a major difference in the energy needed to heat air by one degree at -30 C and 30 C makes no sense to me. While it is true that the specific heat of a substance will vary by temperature, dry air over that range has a fairly constant value of 1.005 kJ/(kg · K) for a constant pressure. Granted, warmer air will hold more water vapor which has both a higher specific heat and a more variable specific heat over that temperature range, but even at 100% humidity, that's still a less than 5% change in specific heat at 1 atm due to differences in water vapor. That doesn't strike me as major.

Maybe you have a source that takes into account some additional composition differences in air at those temperatures that allow for a greater than 5% variance in specific heat over that range? If so, please share it.

I should point out that I'm specifically referring to earth surface temperatures here and I'm sorry I didn't.

I should have said "it takes much more energy to heat up the tropics a degree than it does the Arctic regions given the conditions of the air in such scenarios".  No air is perfectly dry and so often the main difference is water content.


Adam T:  The planet is warming at different rates everywhere.  Some regions have even gotten colder in the past 20 years (the oceans around Antarctica, for example).  Then not only that, but the atmosphere is warming at varying rates depending how far above the ground you are. 

Greenhouse theory predicts that the troposphere should warm because the greenhouse gases trap heat in this part of the atmosphere.  Warming should be strongest over the tropics some 15,000-25,000 feet above the ground because this is where greenhouse gases build up the most.

In addition to that, this heat being kept in the troposphere means the stratosphere should cool. 

Scientists will claim this is the case (that the stratosphere has cooled as the troposphere has warmed)... it really isn't.  While the troposphere has warmed, it hasn't warmed the way the theory states it should.  And while the stratosphere is cooler today than it was in 1979... it did not cool gradually as greenhouse gases built up.  Instead, it cooled in two lump sums after large volcanic eruptions (one in 1982 and another in 1991).  There has been no stratospheric cooling since 1994.


The two spikes are due to volcanic eruptions.  A steady addition of carbon dioxide should mean a steady cooling of the stratosphere.  That's simple physics.  Solar radiation is consistent enough that the reaction of solar radiation against greenhouse gas molecules is pretty constant as well.  That's what the models predict.

The planet is warming only in the troposphere.  It is warming the most at the surface.  At the surface, the strongest warming occurs in the Arctic while the least occurs in the Antarctic.  The warming tends not to be gradual... but comes in bursts after El Nino events....

The models are modestly off in the amount of warming we should see... but more importantly, they are completely wrong in the WAY the planet should be warming and changing as greenhouse gases build up.

I'm not outright denying climate change.  But either the planet reacts differently to increased greenhouse gases than what scientists and the models think... or it's not greenhouse gases responsible for the warming.

As of now, climate scientists aren't even looking at this.  They're worried about how much longer a "warmer planet" will make transatlantic flights and how climate change is increasing shark attacks or making insects angrier or whatever...

[Ban my account ffs!]

Snowguy, your claim that there is a major difference in the energy needed to heat air by one degree at -30 C and 30 C makes no sense to me. While it is true that the specific heat of a substance will vary by temperature, dry air over that range has a fairly constant value of 1.005 kJ/(kg · K) for a constant pressure. Granted, warmer air will hold more water vapor which has both a higher specific heat and a more variable specific heat over that temperature range, but even at 100% humidity, that's still a less than 5% change in specific heat at 1 atm due to differences in water vapor. That doesn't strike me as major.

Maybe you have a source that takes into account some additional composition differences in air at those temperatures that allow for a greater than 5% variance in specific heat over that range? If so, please share it.

I should point out that I'm specifically referring to earth surface temperatures here and I'm sorry I didn't.

I should have said "it takes much more energy to heat up the tropics a degree than it does the Arctic regions given the conditions of the air in such scenarios".  No air is perfectly dry and so often the main difference is water content.

Which doesn't address my point that based on what I could find, differences in water vapor content would only cause at most a minor 5% difference in the energy required to heat the air, so what do you base your statement that there is a major difference?

Im not having some pointless elementary argument with you about warming up air in a lab ernest.  Stop derailing the discussion.

Total solar irradiance doesn't vary more than 5%. There are myriad factors that lead to varying amounts of energy arriving at different parts of the globe.  But heat transfer by air and ocean currents and through radiation into space mean it takes more energy to heat the tropics by 1C than the polar regions.