How Bad Is Global Warming?

[Ben D]

Yes, there is much for me to learn about planetary science ..

Yet for 5? years now you've been insisting on [bog standard AGW denier] lines of "its the sun/a nwo communist plot/corrupt climate scientists".

Stop lying you disgusting example of a human, my insistence has been on challenging the erroneous science of AGW and continues.

The AGW GCMs used by the IPCC have all failed to predict the 16/17 years of pause in global temperature increase, this with ever increasing human derived CO2 emissions over the same period. Climate scientists are increasingly talking about lowering the estimates of CO2 forcing in the models to better fit the climate reality.

Do you challenge this specific scientific reality, and if so provide explanation. However posting ad hominem and irrelevant handwaving stuff about general global warming doom will not pass muster with me.

[Rory]

All that pales into comparison with:

It's the sun, stupid.

Well done, Ben, for keeping away from insults and vague explanations

[Ben D]

All that pales into comparison with:

It's the sun, stupid.

Well done, Ben, for keeping away from insults and vague explanations

Rory, when the CO2 forcing estimation is reduced in GCMs, the previous higher temperatures recorded need to be accounted for by some other effect, this is where the 'It's the sun, stupid' is a relevant call, according to those solar scientists who claim the sun's impact on global temperature is greater than that relying on TSI variations only which are already included in the GCM calculations.

Understood?

Vague explanation? ....it that an excuse to ignore the 16/17 year period of lack of warming?

[wintler2]

Stop lying you disgusting example of a human, my insistence has been on challenging the erroneous science of AGW and continues.

'Disgusting example of a human' .. Is that how you deal with all conflict, or just online? Am i supposed to be more hurt each time you type it, or less?


Is now a good time for me to ask you to reference your claims to fact, i.e. link to published data & analysis? Because you make alot of unsupported claims, it'll be easier to deal with your misunderstandings if we know their sources.

The AGW GCMs used by the IPCC have all failed to predict the 16/17 years of pause in global temperature increase,

Lie by omission - there has been a slow down in rate of increase of -some- land surface temps, while troposphere, polar regions & deep sea are warming faster, hence wild weather, melting icecaps, tundra wildfires etc.

this with ever increasing human derived CO2 emissions over the same period.

True, tho interestingly nearing decline in some OECD nations as they get postpeak poorer.

Climate scientists are increasingly talking about lowering the estimates of CO2 forcing in the models to better fit the climate reality.

Some are, some aren't, so what? GCMs have been constantly improved for last century, are still very good fits for observed warming. And the models used by IPCC are much better than those of AGW deniers, who offer no global models and no consistent explanation for warming to date, jet stream disorder, & ocean acidification.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/lessons ... c-far.html



This animation compares the observed global temperature change since 1990 (black curve) to projections of global temperature change from the first four Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports (red, pink, orange, green) and from various "climate contrarians" (blue, purple, green, gray dashed). The observations are given by the average of 3 primary global temperature datasets (NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4). All of the IPCC projections have proven to be quite accurate, suggesting high reliability. The contrarian projections all underestimate the global warming substantially, and in fact they erroneously predict global cooling and are quite unreliable. Details of the projections are described here, and additional comparisons can be found in the Lessons from Past Predictions series.

[Ben D]

Sks doesn't do real science and their graphs are not accurate. Check your's above against the real data in my graphs. Which is correct?

And here is the HADCRUT4 mean global temperature for 1979 - 2013, and below it is the ESR1 (Mauna Loa) CO2 levels for 1979 - 2013.

Note the increase in CO2 levels for 1997 and 2013, against the zero temperature increase for the same period.





IPCC GCMs are failing...

[Iamwhomiam]

Ben, when I once again posted the graph below back on July 29th, on page 30 of this thread, I didn't think more of an explanation was necessary, considering the time we previously spent discussing it, but I see now a bit more than a visual of a shifting-image graph is called for.

Simply and succinctly put, your arguing for us to take note of another blue line and we're telling you your argument is insignificant overall. Yes, Ben, we see the blue lines, do you see the red one?


The flaw in the predictive models, all models being fictions based upon assumption from gathered data, probability and more, in this case the flaw was the failure to account for moisture in the atmosphere, tiny water vapor droplets, its heat retention, reflection and refraction. Fortunately, when reality deviates from a model's prediction, we can usually find a good reason why things didn't perform as expected, but sometimes we're left with a mystery. Such a mystery, a puzzle requires dismantling and close examination and this is how the water vapor was found to be omitted. Ockham's razorish like.

Ben, there's no need for name-calling. Whenever you seek to denigrate another you denigrate yourself even more.

Our carbon levels advanced by more than 8ppm last year, from 392 to now over 400ppm. That's an astronomical increase for such a short time period.

[Ben D]

Hi Iam, the problem with that graph from SkS is that it is not based on real data. Check the temperature plot against time on that graph against the graph I posted based on HADCRUT 4. See if you can find out what data the SkS graph is based on, for until that can be determined, it is to be considered a joke.

Sure, the CO2 levels are going up, but the global temperature over the last 16/17 years has not, so that is calling into question the anthropogenic cause claims, in the minds of a growing number of skeptics.

[wintler2]

Hi Iam, the problem with that graph from SkS is that it is not based on real data.

Another BenD lie.

The data (green) are the average of the NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomaly datasets from January 1970 through November 2012, with linear trends for the short time periods Jan 1970 to Oct 1977, Apr 1977 to Dec 1986, Sep 1987 to Nov 1996, Jun 1997 to Dec 2002, and Nov 2002 to Nov 2012 (blue), and also showing the far more reliable linear trend for the full time period (red).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Ben-i-just-discovered-carbon-cycle-D himself cherrypicks a short sequence from one set of temp observations, as per AGW denier 101 handbook, and despite his own data source warning against such practices ..

Beware sharp tools - However, with sharp tools comes great responsibility... Please read the notes on things to beware of - and in particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends. Remember that the signals we are dealing with are very, very noisy, and it's easy to get misled - or worse, still to mislead others.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/

When does willful ignorance become systematic deceit?

[wintler2]

A Song of Flood and Fire: One Million Square Kilometers of Burning Siberia Doused by Immense Deluge

About a week and a half ago, I reported on a great burning event in which a massive region of Russian Siberia erupted in hundreds of wildfires blanketing it in a sea of smoke clearly visible in the NASA Aqua Satellite record. Today, reports from Interfax/Radio Russia describe an immense flood emergency in which over 1 million square kilometers of Russia’s Yakutia region have been submerged by a catastrophic rain event.

From the Interfax report:

“It is a unique situation in the sense that it has spread over more than 2,000 kilometers if one looks from west to east, while its depth or width is more than 500 kilometers,” Vladimir Stepanov, head of the National Crisis Management Center of the Emergency Ministry, told a news conference in Moscow.

According to the report, hundreds of villages in this, thankfully, sparsely populated region have been inundated by water putting hundreds of thousands of people in amongst a swirling flood. According to reports from Russian government, the region is now the site of a massive and major rescue operation. As of August 11, the operation composed an army of 20,000 personnel — a force that is likely to have greatly swelled as this major climate disaster expanded through today.
http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/20 ... se-deluge/

Lots of links & images at source.

[Luther Blissett]

[Ben D]

Hi Iam, the problem with that graph from SkS is that it is not based on real data.

Another BenD lie.

The data (green) are the average of the NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomaly datasets from January 1970 through November 2012, with linear trends for the short time periods Jan 1970 to Oct 1977, Apr 1977 to Dec 1986, Sep 1987 to Nov 1996, Jun 1997 to Dec 2002, and Nov 2002 to Nov 2012 (blue), and also showing the far more reliable linear trend for the full time period (red).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Ben-i-just-discovered-carbon-cycle-D himself cherrypicks a short sequence from one set of temp observations, as per AGW denier 101 handbook, and despite his own data source warning against such practices ..

Beware sharp tools - However, with sharp tools comes great responsibility... Please read the notes on things to beware of - and in particular on the problems with short, cherry-picked trends. Remember that the signals we are dealing with are very, very noisy, and it's easy to get misled - or worse, still to mislead others.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/

When does willful ignorance become systematic deceit?

Not very rigorous sir, concerning the mixing of all five (NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4) data sources and massaging them...“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.” ~ John von Neumann.

So who's cherry picking? SkS that's who....here's a review of the ‘Skeptical Science’ Misrepresents Their Animation “The Escalator” by climate scientist Bob Tisdale...

Apparently, one of the proudest achievements of the website SkepticalScience is their “Down the Up Escalator” gif animation. They prominently display it in their right sidebar. The intent of the animation is to show that global temperature anomalies can flatten or cool over decadal or shorter periods while warming over the long term.



The first version was created using the Berkley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) land surface air temperature dataset. That, of course, made SkepticalScience appear two-faced, because the papers associated with the BEST dataset had not yet appeared in any peer-reviewed scientific journals and SkepticalScience downplays any research efforts that haven’t been peer reviewed.

The second version...



ONE OF THE TRENDS IN THE REVISED ESCALATOR IS MISREPRESENTED



In an effort to distract from their duplicity, SkepticalScience revised and reissued the animation (modified screen cap above), using the average of the GISS LOTI, HADCRUT4, and NCDC land surface air plus sea surface temperature anomaly datasets. If you were to click on the mini “Escalator” animation along the right-hand side of their main page, you’re brought to the updated GISS-, UK Met Office- and NCDC-based Escalator. SkepticalScience describes “The Escalator” animation as (my boldface):

Average of GISS, NCDC, and HadCRUT4 monthly global surface temperature anomalies from January 1970 through August 2012 (green) with linear trends applied to the timeframes Jan ’70 – Oct ’77, May ’77 – Dec ’85, Jan ’86 – June ’94, Nov ’94 – Dec ’00, Jan ’01 – Aug ’12.

You’ll note that they’re now calling it “The Escalator”—no longer calling it the “Down the Up Escalator”. Yet each of the steps in their escalator clearly shows a short-term trend that’s flat or cools slightly.

SkepticalScience misrepresented the trend of the “fourth step”. The time period they selected is November 1994 to December 2000. As it turns out, the only dataset that shows a flat trend during that period is the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI). Both HADCRUT4 and NCDC have significant warming trends from November 1994 to December 2000 at about 0.08 to 0.09 deg C per decade. The average of the three datasets is approximately 0.06 deg C/decade, and that is a significant warming trend.

How significant is that 0.06 deg C per decade trend? It’s comparable to the trend in global surface temperatures since 1880.

The following animation will give you an idea what “The Escalator” would look like if SkepticalScience had used the real linear trend for the fourth step.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Readers: – Here’s the “take-home”. As the “Escalator” graphic demonstrates, with cherry-picking you can find low (or high) trends in short periods of a noisy signal. But those short trends are just looking at the _noise_. Which is why proper science includes measuring the statistical significance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance) of the trend to see if it is meaningful. Until he does so, until he numerically demonstrates that a trend has appeared over and above the noise – he’s said _nothing_ of interest. He’s just looking at the noise…

[wintler2]

Not very rigorous sir, concerning the mixing of all five (NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4) data sources and massaging them...“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.” ~ John von Neumann.

Nonsense, observed data aren't parameters they're variables, if you don't know the difference don't use the term. Aggregating similar data from different sources is unavoidable where continuous data is scarce, usually due to defunding of programs.

Re your claim that Bob Tisdale is a climate scientist, i see he has a blog on Forbes.com & a 'controvertial' book but no qualifications nor a single peer reviewed journal article. What makes you think he is a climate scientist, surely not his popularity with pro-polluter website wattsupwiththat?

[wintler2]

Nice graphic, much the same happening here downunder - longer fire seasons, more intense fires, more extreme/catastrophic fire danger days.

Not specific to fire but relevant, Aus's 2012-23 summer:

http://climatecommission.gov.au/report/ ... ry-summer/

[Ben D]

Not very rigorous sir, concerning the mixing of all five (NASA GISS, NOAA NCDC, and HadCRUT4) data sources and massaging them...“With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.” ~ John von Neumann.

Nonsense, observed data aren't parameters they're variables, if you don't know the difference don't use the term. Aggregating similar data from different sources is unavoidable where continuous data is scarce, usually due to defunding of programs.

Re your claim that Bob Tisdale is a climate scientist, i see he has a blog on Forbes.com & a 'controvertial' book but no qualifications nor a single peer reviewed journal article. What makes you think he is a climate scientist, surely not his popularity with pro-polluter website wattsupwiththat?

Typical, you completely ignore the criticism of the fake SkS 'elevator', and instead raise diversions.

If you think Bob Tisdale's analysis is in error, explain to us, otherwise we will assume you accept it as valid.

[Rory]

You do it constantly, Ben. You rarely talk about the matter at hand and often ('cept when you post rabidly biased shite from whattsupwiththeirshillingforpolluters.com), either attack the source or scientists, or flame and disrupt the poster you find issue with.

It is quite entertaining though

1-0 climate change denial vs legitimate debate