Climate Change: The Burden of Proof

[136or142]

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.

First of all, I believe that is wrong.  I think there are several stations around the world (obviously in several different countries) that record and report on surface temperature data.

There may be just one agency in charge of reporting the data,  but there seem to be multiple ways of determining if surface temperature has warmed that don't rely on that data:

The surface temperature trends are also confirmed from multiple, independent sources:

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

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

Satellite measurements of lower atmosphere temperatures show temperature rises between 0.16°C and 0.24°C/decade since 1982.

Ice core reconstructions found the 20th century to be the warmest of the past five centuries, confirming the results of earlier proxy reconstructions.

Sea surface temperatures, borehole reconstructions and ocean temperatures all show long-term warming trends.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-intermediate.htm

There is also more than one recording station:

The temperature increase is not an artifact of declining numbers of stations
While it is true that the number of stations in GHCN has decreased since the early 1990s, that has no real effect on the results of spatially weighted global temperature reconstructions. How do we know this?

Comparisons of trends for stations that dropped out versus stations that persisted post-1990 show no difference in the two populations prior to the dropouts (see, e.g., here and here and here).
The spatial weighting processes (e.g., gridding) used in these analyses makes them robust to the loss of stations. In fact, Nick Stokes has shown that it's possible to derive a global temperature reconstruction using just 61 stations worldwide (in this case, all the stations from GISTEMP that are classified as rural, have at least 90 years of data, and have data in 2010).
Other data sets that don't suffer from GHCN's decline in station numbers show the same temperature increase (see below).
One prominent claim (by Joe D'Aleo and Anthony Watts) was that the loss of "cool" stations (at high altitudes, high latitudes, and rural areas) created a warming bias in the temperature trends. But Ron Broberg conclusively disproved this, by comparing trends after removing the categories of stations in question. D'Aleo and Watts are simply wrong.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

[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.

[136or142]

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.

I don't know anything about that.  All I see is that one of the websites that reports that also said that 'skeptical science' removes any comments that don't agree with them' and a quick read of the comments section on 'skeptical science' shows that to be a lie.

[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.

[136or142]

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.

I've looked for journal articles on global warming but, not surprisingly many of them only make the abstracts available for free.

However, none of the points mentioned on the skeptical science site had anything to do with future impacts but commented on other ways that scientists verify surface temperature independently and also something else.

I've also listened to many scientists on global warming and contrary to what you claim, pretty much all of them, like all good scientists, speak of the data they have, speak of potential impacts in terms of most likely scenarios and frequently refute 'scary worst case scenarios.' 

For instance, the film The Day After Tomorrow said that an ice age would occur in Europe due to the slowing of the ocean currents in the Gulf Stream.  While you'll find 10 year old articles on the internet mentioning that as a possibility, I"ve heard a couple scientists who both know that global warming is real on different programs recently say "there is simply no evidence that the gulf stream is presently slowing down or will in the future."

I've also heard many other examples of scientists who are both real in their scientific conservatism and real in knowing that global warming is real comment on  'worst case scenarios' that may have created some fear in the public due to popular sensationalist websites and refute them.

I don't know what scientists you listen to, but I've never heard a fear mongering scientist, unless you consider the reality of global warming itself to be fear mongering.

[136or142]

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.

[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?

[136or142]

You are doing exactly what Michael Shermer said.  You are cherry picking data sets.  
1.This is a minor point, but it illustrates your technique perfectly.  You showed the picture of one the one individual, John Cook, and said that it reflected all of the people at that website.  I suppose it could, but since I don't know the context of that picture, if this picture of John Cook is even real and not photo shopped, there are a number of other rational explanations that could simply mean, if the picture is real, that while John Cook is a loon, that everybody else at that site, is a genuine diligent scientist.

Skeptical science still has John Cook's bio describing him as a scientist and I can find no mention of this story anywhere else except on global warming denialist websites.

2.On to the science, I'm not really sure why I even bother responding to a person who brings up this '1998' lie.  Do you seriously think there is a single person here who does not know that 1998 was an extremely warm La Nina year and that if you choose 1997 or 1999 as the baseline there is considerable warming between then and 2015.  There has been no 'global warming pause.'  Selective picking of non representative evidence = lie.

3.Your University of Alabama-Huntsville graph is a cherry picked lie as well.  That is just one data set,  of the global lower troposphere, but there are sets that complete the data (the middle troposphere and the tropical troposphere are the other two.)

Taken together they do show that 'the troposphere has not warmed quite as fast as the models predicted.'

This is the information from the real scientists.  I note, that unlike your claims that 'the scientists present the most extreme scenario' that was is presented here is the possibilities of doubt and alternative hypothesis to explain the data.  This is a scientific site, but it is public, and that is consistent with the genuine global warming scientists that I hear in the media.

http://www.remss.com/research/climate

"Atmospheric Temperature

See the Upper Air Temperature Measurement page for details about how the atmospheric temperature datasets are produced.  Here we present applications of this dataset to climate change analysis.

TROPOSPHERIC TEMPERATURE

There are three tropospheric temperature datasets available from RSS, TLT (Temperature Lower Troposphere), TMT (Temperature Middle Troposphere), and TTT (Temperature Tropical Troposphere, after Fu and Johansen). Using these datasets, we can investigate whether there have been significant changes in the tropospheric temperature over the last 35 years, and whether or not the spatial patterns of these changes agree with those predicted by climate models.

Over the past decade, we have been collaborating with Ben Santer at LLNL (along with numerous other investigators) to compare our tropospheric results with the predictions of climate models.  Our results can be summarized as follows:

Over the past 35 years, the troposphere has warmed significantly.  The global average temperature has risen at an average rate of about 0.13 degrees Kelvin per decade (0.23 degrees F per decade).
Climate models cannot explain this warming if human-caused increases in greenhouse gases are not included as input to the model simulation.
The spatial pattern of warming is consistent with human-induced warming.  See Santer et al 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012 for more about the detection and attribution of human induced changes in atmospheric temperature using MSU/AMSU data.
 

But....

The troposphere has not warmed quite as fast as most climate models predict.
 

To illustrate this last problem, we show several plots below.  Each of these plots has a time series of TLT temperature anomalies using a reference period of 1979-2008.  In each plot, the blue band is the 5% to 95% envelope for the RSS V3.3 MSU/AMSU Temperature uncertainty ensemble.  (For a detailed explanation of the uncertainty ensemble, see Mears et al. 2011.)  The yellow band shows the 5% to 95% envelope for the results of 33 CMIP-5 model simulations (19 different models, many with multiple realizations) that are intended to simulate Earth's Climate over the 20th Century.  For the time period before 2005, the models were forced with historical values of greenhouse gases, volcanic aerosols, and solar output.  After 2005, estimated projections of these forcings were used. If the models, as a whole, were doing an acceptable job of simulating the past, then the observations would mostly lie within the yellow band.  For the first two plots (Fig. 1 and Fig 2), showing global averages and tropical averages, this is not the case.  Only for the far northern latitudes, as shown in Fig. 3, are the observations mostly within the range of model predictions.

Why does this discrepancy exist?  One possible explanation is an error in the fundamental physics used by the climate models.  In addition to this possibility, there are at least three other plausible explanations for the warming rate differences.  There are errors in the forcings used as input to the model simulations (these include forcings due to anthropogenic gases and aerosols, volcanic aerosols, solar input, and changes in ozone), errors in the satellite observations (partially addressed by the use of the uncertainty ensemble), and sequences of internal climate variability in the simulations that are difference from what occurred in the real world.  We call to these four explanations “model physics errors”, “model input errors”, “observational errors”, and “different variability sequences”. They are not mutually exclusive. In fact, there is hard scientific evidence that all four of these factors contribute to the discrepancy, and that most of it can be explained without resorting to model physics errors.  For a detailed discussion of all these reasons, see the post on the Skeptical Science blog by Ben Santer and Carl Mears."

I know this site bans some people that use abusive language, I suggest that people who deliberately lie like Snowguy716 does should be banned as well.  This isn't a matter of a disagreement of opinion, this is a matter of intellectual integrity.

[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

[Figueira]

It's true that scientists aren't entirely sure what all the effects of climate change are. Something as complex as the Earth's atmosphere is incredibly hard to predict. But they're pretty much in unanimous agreement that it is happening, and it's expected to have disastrous outcomes, especially if we ignore the problem. Do we really want to take that risk?

[136or142]

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

I did not call for your banning over bringing this issue up, I called for your banning over deliberate misuse of data over this issue, i.e lying.

You wouldn't know the first thing about 'level headed analysis' and you are the dogmatic one, not me and not the scientists.

You're the one that is saying (or seems to be saying) 'it can't be AGW.'  THAT'S DOGMA

[136or142]

1.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.

It was a direct rebuttal from an actual scientific web site of your post.  That you 'think' it's 'irrelevant' garbage' is not due to anything I posted but obviously due to the fact that you don't like what it said.


2"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?"

This is the other reason that I posted that link. It directly contradicts your claim that the scientists are 'global warming alarmists.'  As I said before the information presented their was fact based, expressed areas of possible doubt and suggested alternative hypothesis to explain things.  

The only way you can continue to lie that the scientists who know the reality of AGW is alarmist is because you have a DOGMATIC belief over that.

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!

3. 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.

That is actually mentioned in that 'irrelevant garbage' article.  Odd how the 'alarmists' aren't trying to cover that up.  They also mention the possibility that the entire accepted physics behind AGW could be wrong (which is what I meant when I said 'they express doubt) but they say there are at least four other rational explanations of why the datasets haven't matched up.  I'm also not sure how that article can be 'irrelevant garbage' when it directly addresses the issues you're raising.  You may want to think it's 'garbage' but, again, that's only because it doesn't agree with your DOGMATIC beliefs.

4.But that's not where the most warming is occurring!  Warming has been only modest in the tropical mid-troposphere.
Wrong: http://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-scientists-elusive-tropospheric-hot.html

Warming is warming and just because you don't think the areas that seem to be warming the most are important doesn't mean they aren't.  If the warming mainly remains confined to the upper troposphere it may mean that AGW won't have a severe impact as the worst case scenarios being put forth right now. However, the significant thing about the warming in the upper troposphere is that it provides another piece of evidence that warming is occurring and that, in conjunction with all the other evidence, that it is mainly due to AGW. There is nothing that I read in that article that said that if AGW is occurring that the temperature rise has to occur throughout the entire troposphere evenly, so unless you have a sound scientific reason for saying that it should, you have no scientific reason to not include all the different datasets. So, again you are falsely cherry picking data (i.e, lying.)

5.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.

The mainstream media tends to sensationalize everything, not just AGW issues.  For instance, they also fear monger about the costs of addressing AGW due to dishonest press releases they receive from fossil fuel companies.  The scientific community shouldn't be held responsible for a press that is trying to maximize profits and frequently attempts to do so using ethically dubious practices.


6. 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.  

A dishonest conspiracy laced charge.  NOAA doesn't put out final papers because it takes several months to even begin to determine the specific cause (or causes) of any single event.  Your insinuation that they wait several months so as to let the popular press fearmonger first is not only a lie but is also false from every scientist I've heard as during the event they all say something like "we can't determine the cause of this event yet."  Also, for this year anyway, most of them simply say "La Nina" and most don't even mention that La Nina this year is likely at least slightly more extreme than in the past due to AGW.

Finally on this, the latest research I've read suggests that the consensus scientific view is that roughly half of all extreme weather events are mostly due to AGW.

7.Global emissions absolutely exploded during the 2000s.

I can't find any data on total GHG emissions, but for CO2, according to this graph: CO2 emssions increased from around 25 billion metric tons at the start of the decade to around 32 billion tons now.  Is that exploded?  I don't know.  Some might say that a term like 'exploded' is 'alarmist.'


8.Sea level rise has not accelerated despite this alleged massive increase in ocean heat since 2000.

Sea levels are rising due to the melting of the glaciers and the increase in heat in the oceans: Graph here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm

I know you said you don't like that site, but until you show me from a non global warming denialist website that the information you presented on that scientist is correct and that it somehow negates everything on that site, I don't see any reason to not continue using it.

The sea level has not risen as quickly as should have been expected by the rise in GHGs, but it's only a person with a DOGMATIC belief who would say that that can only be because the entire theory is wrong.  Here is one actual scientific alternative explanation: http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-water-land-gravity-sea-level-20160215-story.html

"Thirsty continents are slowing down expected sea level rise, scientists say"

If you wish to continue this discussion with me, I'd prefer it if you link to and cut and paste from credible scientific websites (if there are any genuine AGW skeptical websites) as you have no credibility to me.  A good way to judge is that if they use '1998' as a baseline year, it's a AGW denialist junk site.

[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.

[136or142]

"'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."

I don't have time to address everything you wrote right now but I do want to reply to this briefly.

My background is in economics (I'm not an economist) so I'm thoroughly familiar with the concept of diminishing returns.  Were the numbers you presented in your example a fair representation of the science you would have a point, but those are dishonest numbers.  The data says that THE MOST warming has occurred in the upper troposphere.  I haven't looked up the exact numbers, and they're not presented in terms of the actual temperature anyway, but a more honest presentation using your example would be to compare air warming from 30C to 31C to air warming from -31C to -20C.

Also, if the climate models are still wrong, all that shows is that they're still don't take all the very complicated variables into account, it doesn't negate the reality of AGW.

[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.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

[136or142]

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.

But, if the warming is strongest at the surface, then the warming has raised (using the example you gave, and not the actual warming) the temperature from 30C to 31C.

Am I missing something or are you trolling me?

I don't know.  Maybe you're being consistent and I just don't understand it, but it seems like you're frequently contradicting yourself.

[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...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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?

[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.

[Torie]

So if not CO2 generated, at least in the way the scientists think it would, what are the alternative theories, and evidence, as to why the surface is warming some, and more in the Arctic, than elsewhere?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

But whether it's a major or a minor difference is going to be a matter of opinion because minor and major are inexact terms, snowguy. You're the one who made the unvarnished claim that it is a major difference so I'm asking for the backing of it from actual data rather than simply pulling it out of thick air so I can judge whether what you consider to be a major difference is something I would consider to be major. I presumed since you were willing to make the claim, you were actually basing it on some real data since you care enuf about this subject to have gone into considerable study of the data.

[pbrower2a]

Never heard of this site before, and the low-energy Jebra ads on it don't help its case.

Climate change is real, kthxbye

I an familiar with it -- pseudo-intellectual, right-wing site.